The idea of using search for branding is not new. It has been around for a few years and the notion has been validated by research that shows the synergy between search, display, and brand (post link here). However, as a direct branding vehicle, search is not there, yet.

Search 2.0 may be the next step for branding. Currently, video and image search is focused on SEO. This leaves too much to chance. If we are going to use the search space for branding then we will need to buy and place search ads for image and video. This will come.

The focus of search 1.0 is lower funnel, near purchase / action queries. As the searcher is closer to the sale, advertisers are willing to pay more. As technology facilitates more branding level ads, the experience makes sense farther up the funnel. In otherwords, Search 2.0.

If some one types in “car safety features”, I can see a video taking the searcher through the safety features of a new car, with a link to the site for more information. If the query is “[brand] dealer”, then the normal text ad linked to a dealer may make more sense. There are cross over terms where the right delivery may not be clear. Point is, the world of Search 2.0 will allow not only messaging, but media targeted toward intent.

What will challenge the engines is deriving a price point that will allow it to sustain branding efforts. In the auto world, search CPM equivalent can range from $600 to over $2000… hardly the economics of Branding. In general the average search CPM equivalent is roughly $560. When I bought general media, I would pay anywhere from $6 to $90 depending on the demo (12-16 teens was a real bear to hit). Targeted search need not come down to this level, and shouldn’t. But, it can not be the same as the current cost.

If we can solve the economics of this equation, then the media will prove to be a great benefit for Branding.

SEO, Engagement Base Content vs CGC

Consumer Generated Content. Really, we are looking at Engagement Based Content. This is far more than semantics. The first presents an aura of complete lack of control on the part of a company. The second recognizes the reality.

When we acknowledge that it is Engagement Based Content, we take a step toward changing our paradigm. We begin to recognize that even “original” content is really in response to stimuli that the creator experienced. With this in mind, we can see how positively powerful the internet is for companies. Not just in influencing consumer behavior, but, perhaps more importantly, allowing consumers to influence ours.

We have already built some of this into our ethos. There was a time when the financial risk to a company for a bad decision could be easily contained; thus allowing companies some latitude in the gray area between right and wrong. Now, in recognition of the likely Engagement Based Content that will be generated, companies have much more at risk, and are therefore more likely the follow the “right” path.

But it really goes way beyond that. With honest stimuli, companies can generate extremely positive responses in the marketplace. And it has to be honest, as the dishonest are quickly unveiled and skewered in the pike of Engagement Based Content.

I guess what I am getting at is that we have gone from a time when companies tried to make us “feel good about what happened”, to “making good things happen.”

By recognizing that content is generated in response to what happens, companies have a great opportunity to make good things happen and spawn a plethora of good content.

For those not involved in the world of Engagement Based Content, there is opportunity. They need to get there because, the content will come but they will have no input.

_____________________________________________________________________________
So, why does a guy who writes about search care about so much about Engagement Based Content? Because SEO is no longer just about your site; SEO is about the web content about your brand, products or services. As we think about CGC as Engagement Based Content, we begin to see how our SEO efforts really extend beyond our SERPS, but are about SERPS of content about “us.”

It becomes a time when we can demonstrate the dangers of bad decisions. Inbound links are great, but not if they are derived from bad press, derisive blogs or bad experiences posted on boards or personal pages. High rankings resulting from defective product stories are not positive.

I have often argued that SEMs have to get out of their comfort zone. They need to understand the whole business of the company, how it makes money the marketing goals and objectives and how all marketing efforts are built to support them. Understanding and trying to influence Engagement Based Content is simply one more part of this.

Influencing Engagement Based Content is harder than SEO. But, it is no less vital an effort. Nor is it a lone wolf tactic. It requires a pack to work together. Every pack needs a leader. If your company does not have one, then you should think about stepping up.

SEM meeting expectations is not good enough.

There are times when you make a connection between two things that are entirely not connected. That happened to me today on the way to the IAB Mixx conference in NY.

As I was walking down the isle on the plane, I saw the lady in the seat behind mine reach around and drop an empty water bottle on my seat. As I approached the row, I picked up the water bottle and, as politely as I could muster, asked “is this yours?” To which she replied “no.” And, you know, she was most likely telling the truth. It was probably left there by the prior passenger. But instead of just taking care of it herself, she dropped it on me.

Now I just shrugged, put the empty bottle between my bags on the floor in front of me and then threw it out when the attendants picked up trash. In other words, I just took care of it.

Then it struck me… this was the same mind set that I am seeing too often in SEM. Here is how it relates.

We have a very focused scope in our relationships with our clients. A scope in which search is a part, but not the whole. But, because of the way our team handles our core efforts in search, we very frequently have our clients ask us if we can handle their SEM in other areas; areas being handled by traditional SEM agencies. We have always approached these requests with great caution, a likely result of building our programs by putting our own money at risk, no the clients.

When we agree to take a look at it, what I frequently see is SEM from several years back. Somewhere, accountability for IMPROVING performance, not just meeting client expectations, got lost. It used to be easy to impress people outside of search, because they were so accustom to off-line metrics. SEM always looked good. But the improvements stopped there. And, if the client changed SEM agencies, the core problems persisted. While improvements were being gained in other marketing efforts, SEM remained stagnant. Each agency simply passed the empty bottle, the trash, on to the next.

This past year, for the first time at SMX, I heard a number of key SEM agencies talk about real improvement (they’ve been doing it, just not talking about it so much). Impact on sales trumped clicks or CTR. Cost per sale was more important than cost per click. Tracking performance to the sales has finally come out of the closet. This is great for those who embrace it. It may mean lower ad spend, and then lower compensation for SEMs. But, it is the right thing to do.

If the SEMs leave the trash around too long, the client will smell it and look for someone to clean it up. SEMs can not wait. If the clients ask if the SEM will track to the sale, then the SEM was derelict in evangelizing the better metric. Get there before the client, educate the client, even develop a proxy for cost per sale that can be phased out as the real metric is technically developed.

Good SEMs are there. But too many appear to be lagging. This is not good for them, or the industry.

Okay, Bears game is coming on, I gotta go.