Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals
Blog Categories (aka Tags) Archive of Traffick Articles Our Internet Marketing Consulting Services Contact the Traffickers Traffick RSS Feed
Saturday, May 28, 2005

Yahoo's Slider Makes Commercial vs. Informational Dichotomy Overt

Playing to "the algo," as we've argued here for some time, may soon be a thing of the past.

Yahoo's "Mindset" beta offers searchers the ability to customize their search as to commercial intent. Searching for commercial results? Slide the slider closer to the commercial side. Doing a more research-oriented search? Slider over to the right.

Google was the first to introduce sliders of this type. We felt that the significance of this wasn't so much the personalization experiment per se (users would tick off subject interests to "orient" themselves to the engine), but the whole experience of watching results bubble up and down depending on where one set the slider. For the average user, but maybe more importantly, as an educational tool for children learning to search, this could take the whole search experience to the next level.

The other important implication of a world where searchers see vastly different results depending on their own personalized algorithmic recipes, of course, is that search engine optimizers and especially hard-core search engine spammers can't reverse-engineer "the algo". It becomes harder to make generalized claims about "what search engines like." That would mean search marketing would really begin to be about deep marketing strategy, not just B.S. game-playing. A few really good cloakers might clean up, though. More likely, SEO's would claim that the best strategy would be to create multiple site types and multiple page types in order to do their job properly.

Amateur site optimizers and classic "white hat SEO's" might even be harder hit than the hard core optimizers under this scenario. Insofar as they tend to believe in a certain model for a well-optimized site -- one that might sit just to the right of the center of the commercial vs. research slider on the user's interface -- they'd be losing out on more of the traffic that came from eager buyers who slid the control all the way over to the "commercial" side. Few would use that as their default setting, but in those cases where folks really were looking for a commercial page, a "white hat" edict to "create plenty of useful content" might actually backfire, giving a site or page a profile that didn't match the user's commercial intent in making the query, thus pushing such listings well down the list of SERP's.

Currently, such "white hat" pages do very well in Google results. Arguably, that has been the whole purpose of Google's ongoing search quality initiatives leading up to, and especially after, the "Florida" index update of November 2003.

MSN Search was next to introduce "sliders," under the "results ranking" link in search preferences, but like Google's, it was experimental and didn't necessarily create any major useful dichotomies for searchers to sink their teeth into. Popularity and freshness are among the variables. You can play with it to see different results, which I sometimes do when I'm having trouble finding stuff.

Yahoo's Mindset initiative is a stunning and important contribution to a potentially exciting user experience for searchers. Top marks to Yahoo. We'll be watching for further development by all the top engines.

In playing around with the slider I notice that one friend's site, a well-known e-commerce site in its small niche, hits its high-water mark (a #1 ranking on his core term) when the slider is just one tick over towards the "research" side. Evidently, at least for now, Yahoo's technology interprets his site or its home page to be a slightly-white-hat type of thing. When I slide it farther over towards "research," he disappears off the first page, and others (including some commercial pages -- the machine learning should eventually take care of that) rise. When I slide the setting all the way towards "commercial," my friend's (highly commercial) site also drops off the list. I guess his site just isn't quite crassly commercial enough. Drat that blog!

The precariousness of first-page rankings with only minor user-driven adjustments on one parameter just underscores the silliness of client expectations (often fueled in the past by consultants overzealously selling SEO) of top-five results on core terms. Major companies feel they "should be" #1 or no worse than #3 on core terms. Niche leaders get jealous when a competitor at about the same level gets ranked one or two spots higher. Clients of SEO firms get disgruntled if the SEO firm "doesn't get them from #7 to #4" or worse, "allowed us to drop from #2 to #38." It's my sincere hope that down the road, there really will be no #2 or #38. There will be "#2 for Jim, #34 for Sheila, #95 for Naveen, and #10 for Ed." If Jim is your best potential customer anyway, then it's no great loss that your ranking for Sheila might bounce around in the 20's and 30's.

Someday, finally, everyone will look only at real campaign metrics within their web analytics reports: search referrals, paid search referrals, conversions to various actions, and so on. Month to month benchmarks of key metrics (including something as raw and un-search-ish as a simple chart of new customers acquired, on a simple bar graph for each month... doesn't that put it all in perspective) are far more important than "search rankings," of course. Just as in real life, "meals fed to family" is a better metric to look at than "red lights beaten." The two probably don't show a positive correlation, and depending on how aggressively you're trying to beat red lights, they could show a markedly inverse relationship.

Financial advisers have been facing pressures to "create results" for many years. But as we know, markets, like organic search rankings, will fluctuate. Depending on the investor, the best adviser might be the one who educates you, encourages diversification, insists that a certain percentage of your porftolio be in unfashionable value plays, and above all, protects your capital.

It will take years more of education before it's more widely understood that search marketing is about deep marketing strategy, and that search works for users in ways that defy control by marketers. You can steer intelligently to move things in the right direction, and spend a bit more to create better ROI on a search campaign. You can gain amazingly targeted customers at a rapid rate if you do it right. But search engines, as always, are working on ways to serve users, not just advertisers. That means that a first-page organic result is still a low-probability thing. Increasingly, any claims that there is a set methodology for achieving such results consistently should be met with scepticism.

For users, experiments like Mindset are all good.

Posted by Andrew | | | Permalink

Subscribe: +RSS | +My Yahoo | +Newsgator | +Bloglines | +Rojo


Thursday, May 26, 2005

The Head of the Tail

I first started seriously expounding on that whole long tail thing a little over three years ago, when I urged AdWords advertisers to "avoid insider thinking" in their selection of keywords.

Search engine optimizers have done this for much longer, since they've always looked at ways of ranking well on secondary phrases in industries where the top phrases are too competitive. A great way to continue to get lots of diverse search referrals to your site is still pretty basic: have a lot of great content. The diversity of words on those pages will act as a net that should capture odd, unexpected searches -- the phrases that only get typed in once or twice by anyone, ever.

So should we all start getting worried that more people are discovering the tail (props to Seth for the reference)? Nope. If you live by the tail today, or benefit from it, you're safe. The tail, like every other good idea in business, is safe from those who get into it only because it's a fad. Marketers who understand the tail and its benefits will watch as the fadsters come and go, because fadsters always misapply, misunderstand, and generally make mincemeat of any good idea.

In short, for the next little while, the tail becomes the head, as folks obsess about it, raise VC funds on the strength of it, and generally go ga-ga for it.

I mean, really. Take any general trend or fad, like say ASP-based productivity tools. Some like to call this "on demand business." Wall Street champions like to call (a company never shy about promoting its stock) the "poster child for on demand" or something to that effect. Then again, I remember when had invented a new way of counting, or something.

I'm sure that when Google's stock tops $300, the last few bullish analysts will start beating the drum for Google's impressive and still-untapped mastery of the tail.

And some new e-commerce or auction-based services clearinghouse startup that will get squashed when eBay or a better competitor stomps on it will use the tail metaphor to hoodwink a few investors.

The tail has always been there. Big companies like Apple are studying it and figuring out how to design products using idiosyncratic advocates out in the field to look at unusual forms of emerging and highly differentiated consumer demand. It's a frightening and enormously cool thing that so many new businesses can benefit from it, and that so many customers can make so many more specific demands on business. It can't be ignored.

But unless your grasp of the tail fits in with a savvy business sense and customers you've been cultivating for awhile, be careful you aren't really grabbing for the head. You could get bitten.

Posted by Andrew | | | Permalink

Subscribe: +RSS | +My Yahoo | +Newsgator | +Bloglines | +Rojo


Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Advertising 2.0? Old News.

Guess Gary's never read my AdWords Handbook? Those of us who do this for a living have been talking about the wide-ranging potential of AdWords-style auctions for years. Companies like VerticalNet and other vertical auction pioneers were exciting to analysts in their first wave because they offered opportunities for inventory to be sold at whatever price point made sense. When that principle carried over into search advertising, companies like Google and Yahoo went from marginal to highly profitable. That trend may continue as the principle plays out in various ad formats.

As the head of a competing contextual ad service (Quigo) recently told me, Doubleclick failed at this because they were only good at selling the inventory that was easy to sell. They did a terrible job of monetizing remnant inventory for their publisher partners. Not so for Google. Google is doing a fantastic job of it. So much so that a huge number of minor websites are using the system to generate mostly low-CPC ad revenues, and not a few larger publishers are doing the same.

"Junk" ad inventory is easier to sell when you have a platform that facilitates this. And high-priced inventory isn't compromised either, due to the auction system. This principle is now emanating out into the content space, and more are finally taking note of it now that Google is allowing publishers and advertisers to communicate more directly (buying and selling space at a site level).

Here's the odd paradox, though. From Day One, Google did such a good job of helping publishers get paid for their remnant inventory, they did a poor job of forging relations with larger publishers and with big advertisers who want specific media buys in prestige locations and are willing to pay more for it. The recent changes to the content targeting program are a belated recognition of the high-CPM ad market that needs to be treated with more care. Quigo, a key competitor of Google's and Yahoo's in the contextual ad-serving space, built a platform that does a better job of this. In some sectors, such as automotive, Quigo has also done a better job of convincing publishers and advertisers that prestige content needs its own auction. More on the exciting Quigo story soon.

Posted by Andrew | | | Permalink

Subscribe: +RSS | +My Yahoo | +Newsgator | +Bloglines | +Rojo


MSN Paid Search Solution to Embrace the Black Box Approach?

(Hat-tip to Andy Beal)

It sounds like MSN Adcenter will toss factors like user interest (CTR) broken down by target demographic into the mix of ranking factors for paid search ads.

So it will be "more like Google's than Yahoo's" solution, but taking the complexity an additional step forward.

This will make it difficult for the advertiser to fully control their ad delivery or fully understand why an ad is placed in a certain spot (similar to Google's black box algo approach).

Two implications of this: (1) your head will hurt, so you'll hire me, and my head will hurt -- your pain is my pain; (2) it makes very little sense to dabble with the proprietary analytics solutions of a particular analytics vendor, given the importance of having impartial parties assess your campaign results. Third-party analytics vendors are going to be around for a long time, no matter how much sophisticated product the traffic vendors develop under their own umbrellae.

Posted by Andrew | | | Permalink

Subscribe: +RSS | +My Yahoo | +Newsgator | +Bloglines | +Rojo


View Recent Posts


Speaking Engagement

I am speaking at SMX West

Need Solid Advice?        

Google AdWords book

Andrew's book, Winning Results With Google AdWords, (McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed.), is still helping tens of thousands of advertisers cut through the noise and set a solid course for campaign ROI.

And for a glowing review of the pioneering 1st ed. of the book, check out this review, by none other than Google's Matt Cutts.

Posts from 2002 to 2010

Traffick Blog Archive ::
June 30, 2002
July 21, 2002
July 28, 2002
August 04, 2002
August 25, 2002
September 01, 2002
September 08, 2002
September 15, 2002
September 22, 2002
September 29, 2002
October 06, 2002
October 13, 2002
October 20, 2002
October 27, 2002
November 03, 2002
November 10, 2002
November 17, 2002
November 24, 2002
December 01, 2002
December 15, 2002
December 22, 2002
December 29, 2002
January 05, 2003
January 12, 2003
January 19, 2003
January 26, 2003
February 02, 2003
February 09, 2003
February 16, 2003
February 23, 2003
March 02, 2003
March 09, 2003
March 16, 2003
March 23, 2003
March 30, 2003
April 06, 2003
April 13, 2003
April 20, 2003
April 27, 2003
May 04, 2003
May 11, 2003
May 18, 2003
May 25, 2003
June 01, 2003
June 08, 2003
June 15, 2003
June 22, 2003
June 29, 2003
July 06, 2003
July 13, 2003
July 20, 2003
July 27, 2003
August 03, 2003
August 10, 2003
August 17, 2003
August 24, 2003
August 31, 2003
September 07, 2003
September 14, 2003
September 21, 2003
September 28, 2003
October 05, 2003
October 12, 2003
October 19, 2003
October 26, 2003
November 02, 2003
November 09, 2003
November 16, 2003
November 23, 2003
November 30, 2003
December 07, 2003
December 14, 2003
December 21, 2003
December 28, 2003
January 04, 2004
January 11, 2004
January 18, 2004
January 25, 2004
February 01, 2004
February 08, 2004
February 15, 2004
February 22, 2004
February 29, 2004
March 07, 2004
March 14, 2004
March 21, 2004
March 28, 2004
April 04, 2004
April 11, 2004
April 18, 2004
April 25, 2004
May 02, 2004
May 09, 2004
May 16, 2004
May 23, 2004
May 30, 2004
June 06, 2004
June 13, 2004
June 20, 2004
June 27, 2004
July 11, 2004
July 18, 2004
July 25, 2004
August 01, 2004
August 08, 2004
August 15, 2004
August 22, 2004
August 29, 2004
September 05, 2004
September 12, 2004
September 19, 2004
September 26, 2004
October 03, 2004
October 10, 2004
October 17, 2004
October 24, 2004
October 31, 2004
November 07, 2004
November 14, 2004
November 21, 2004
November 28, 2004
December 05, 2004
December 12, 2004
December 19, 2004
January 02, 2005
January 09, 2005
January 16, 2005
January 23, 2005
January 30, 2005
February 06, 2005
February 13, 2005
February 20, 2005
February 27, 2005
March 06, 2005
March 13, 2005
March 20, 2005
March 27, 2005
April 03, 2005
April 10, 2005
April 17, 2005
April 24, 2005
May 01, 2005
May 08, 2005
May 15, 2005
May 22, 2005
May 29, 2005
June 05, 2005
June 12, 2005
June 19, 2005
June 26, 2005
July 03, 2005
July 10, 2005
July 17, 2005
July 24, 2005
July 31, 2005
August 07, 2005
August 14, 2005
August 21, 2005
August 28, 2005
September 04, 2005
September 11, 2005
September 18, 2005
September 25, 2005
October 02, 2005
October 09, 2005
October 16, 2005
October 23, 2005
October 30, 2005
November 06, 2005
November 13, 2005
November 20, 2005
November 27, 2005
December 04, 2005
December 11, 2005
December 18, 2005
December 25, 2005
January 01, 2006
January 08, 2006
January 15, 2006
January 22, 2006
January 29, 2006
February 05, 2006
February 12, 2006
February 19, 2006
February 26, 2006
March 05, 2006
March 12, 2006
March 19, 2006
March 26, 2006
April 02, 2006
April 09, 2006
April 16, 2006
April 23, 2006
April 30, 2006
May 07, 2006
May 14, 2006
May 21, 2006
May 28, 2006
June 04, 2006
June 11, 2006
June 18, 2006
June 25, 2006
July 02, 2006
July 09, 2006
July 16, 2006
July 23, 2006
July 30, 2006
August 06, 2006
August 13, 2006
August 20, 2006
August 27, 2006
September 03, 2006


Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals


Home | Categories | Archive | About Us | Internet Marketing Consulting | Contact Us
© 1999 - 2013 All Rights Reserved