Converge Or Collide

Social Norms Trump Market Norms

2009-09-23T07:52:00.000-05:00

Do you know the difference between market norms and social norms? If you do, can you make the distinction in social marketing?

Something many of us grew up with was the "limited availability offer." In other word, the ad in the paper would promote, say a radio at the local electronics store, but would come with a disclaimer stating that there were only so many, and no rain checks would be given. Generally, we accepted that. If others got there first, they got the radio at the price, and that is just the way it was. This is a market norm; it is monetarily driven, fairly cold, logical to a fault, and basically understood.

A social norm is not driven by money. If I invite people over for a BBQ, and part way through realize I do not have enough burgers or hot dogs, I feel guilty and look for ways to remedy this. Even if some folks show up with relatives who just happened be in town, or folks show up who originally thought they were not going to make it, I have a sense of obligation to make sure everyone is fed, and fed well. So, I run out to the store and buy more of everything I needed. Money is not the issue; making my guests happy is.

As companies venture into social media, they must be very aware that the norms are different now, and getting them mixed up will result in long term harm. To get a sense of this in better words than I can write, (if you have not done so) read "Predictably Irrational" by David Ariely.

The first few chapters show this distinction well (read the whole book though).

A key take away is this:

Though it may not seem so at first, market norms are not nearly so punishing, nor their affect so enduring, as social norms.

If you have a product, and your competitor develops a better value equation, you may lose some customers. Improve your value equation, and you have a shot at getting them back. This is the nature of markets.

On the other hand, if you lose a customer because you made them angry, violating some social norm (even though you're a business), social norms trump market norms and they are gone... perhaps for good.

TGIF, while underestimating the power of social media, certainly appears to understand the blended environment social media presents for social and market norms. In their recent social campaign, promoted on tv, up to 500,000 fans of Woody get a free burger. Well, 500k was reached in short order, and they were still only 1/2 way through the month. TGIF and their agency worked quickly to approve an additional 500K free burgers to honor those who were trying to fan woody after the first mark was hit. There is social credit given for openly and quickly addressing this.

Though TGFI had been upfront about the conditions of the give away (market norms), they realized they were operating in social environment. Rather than saying "we did what we said we'd do, you're wrong to expect more," they pushed forward and honored the intent of the program. TGIF honored the social norm.

2009-09-22T08:38:00.004-05:00

Peering into the brain to figure out what triggers specific reactions and how to motivate consumers to buy is part of the Neuromarketing practice that is being explored today.

Kevin Randal at Movéo Integrated Branding posted on FastCompany's blog about five brands using various techniques.

This is a pretty cool approach. I'd like to see something like this applied to education. What really motivates kid to learn?

Defining what it is not

2009-09-18T07:46:00.002-05:00

I like to read Seth Godin's blog... it makes me think.

If you are marketing on the web, and have a web redesign project, Seth's post suggest key questions to ask. Most have to do with the objective, and considerations for reaching it.

In his list, there are obvious, but frequently overlook questions. He ends with:

"And finally,
Does the organization understand that 'everything' is not an option?"

I have seen organizations, with web projects or others, agree on a project objectives. Only, when it is completed, and the objectives are reached, you hear, "Yes, but I thought we would also be able to..."

Sometimes it is as important to define what a project IS NOT, as it is to define what it IS.

A New Paradigm for Compensation and Structure

2009-09-12T10:29:00.010-05:00

Falsely Treating Every Jobs as a widget...
In many organizations the reward for performing well is to be promoted. With a promotion comes more money (usually) and a broader sphere of influence. The inference is that the lower position is less valuable to the organization; certainly, this is the impression created.

This inference goes along with organizational theory of scientific management (Frederick Taylor; The Principles of Scientific Management) for developing efficiency, which wittingly or not, is foundational to most organizations. By separating front line or lower rung tasks into routinized, binary decisions (the widget to which you add your piece is there or it is not) your labor does not need to be highly skilled, is relatively easy to replace, and cheap. Only as you go higher up in the organization do you find positions that can impact the profits. Managers who can structure the line to move parts more quickly or operate with fewer people; negotiate better supply costs or expand distribution and sales. By routinizing as much as possible you lower costs, reduce defects and focus your monetary rewards on a smaller and presumably more impact-ful group.

This manufacturing based paradigm has been transferred to the service sector. We take call centers that may be handling 5, 6 and 7 digit life time value customers and move them around the world where English is a second or even a third language, give the operators scripts that are very binary and save some money. And these are the valued customers that made it through the IVR.

Unfortunately, this lower rung compensating structure has been so ingrained that it is now applied to virtually every organization. For years I have argued that I would welcome employees who want to stay at the "lower rungs" but organizations are generally not structured to compensate them accordingly. I am not writing about routinized activities, but those in the new economy where "lower rung" employees can have a multi-million dollar impact. They handle million dollar accounts, are asked to identify opportunities to make and save money and have a direct, and often significant affect on the bottom line.

Today we hear more about ROI than ever. Ironically, I can more easily tie activities to results for these employees than most managers I've worked with, including myself. I could take credit for motivating my team or coming up with the big ideas (usually theirs), but that too is part of the old way. To get the kind of results I have seen, individuals must have an inherent motivation, a real desire to do the kinds of things we need them to do... the things they have to stop doing if they want to earn enough to support a family.

Many studies have been done to suggest that money is not a key motivator. But, lack of money, or opportunity to earn it, can be a great de-motivator. You will not make someone good at what they do simply by paying them more. But, if they really like what they do and are good at it, paying them too little can make them perform poorly; lack of desired income will cut their enthusiasm over time.

If we look at the value potential of certain non-managerial positions, and build the compensation structure accordingly, I believe organizations can achieve more with fewer people and have a better work environment because no one feels trapped. But, getting there requires both companies and individuals to do something of a paradigm shift.

The Shift - Companies
Companies must stop viewing those who wish to become experts in "organizationally lower" positions as blocks to organizational development. I believe some of the reasons we have more managers are:

1) People are not monetarily encouraged to view their positions for the long term. To earn more money, they must necessarily seek skills that have less to do with their current role than one, two or three levels above it. This creates a disconnect between company needs and employee career development. To keep employees properly focused, a disproportionate amount of a manager's is spent keeping them on task.

2) By the time anyone becomes really good at what they are doing, they are promoted (or seek opportunities with other companies), creating an experience gap that needs be managed. On top of constantly filling job openings, managers are simultaneously covering for vacant positions (and not necessarily experts at it), and facilitating very basic training.

In addition to the raw dollar cost of constantly recruiting, this situation has an even bigger impact on time. Because the core group of employees has relatively low average time on the job, more are require to get the job done compared to experienced teams. Additionally, given the recruiting overhead and additional direct oversight needs, there is a higher manager to employee ratio required.

Financial compensation structures encourage either False Delegation or Abdication.

Managers struggle with delegation today because they often feel their teams do not have the experience necessary to do the job. Managers who feel they are not staffed with experts either assume direct control (false delegation), or abdicate responsibility for the results. The former requires more mangers (doing the job of their direct reports) and the latter risks performance. Neither is acceptable, both are often evident.

By encouraging well developed expertise in non-managerial positions, whole organizations can become more effective. Those who concentrate in a single area become superbly adept at it. When this happens, you need fewer people in the non-managerial and managerial rolls. Rather than focusing on how to keep the 'thing' going, everyone can focus on improving their area of expertise. But this requires organizations to step up and recognize key players not just with promotions, but with financial models and recognition.

The flip side of this is, perhaps, more challenging. Managers, supported by the company, have to be able to hold their direct reports to very high standards, and be ready to make very difficult decisions. This is true all the way up the organizational chain. If a mid to senior manager is falsely delegating activity, or abdicating responsibility for outcomes, they must be held to task. If they are delegating appropriately, they must, in turn, be able to hold their team to task. In all areas, proper corrective actions ranging from additional training and resources to termination have to not only be available to managers, but expected by all concerned.

The way many organizations have structured their financial compensation models feeds very poor managerial habits. Expectations for current employees are often based on the lowest common denominator - the new employee; is it worth replacing this person with a new employee that we have to train anyway? Many have accepted the need to manage mediocrity, rather than push for excellence. The problem with excellence is that the people who reach it are going to be promoted, or seek advancement elsewhere... where the money is. What if highly valuable individuals, in highly impact-ful positions wanted to, and could afford to stay there for the long haul?

Two Paths
A new paradigm of professional development is needed to provide both the company and the people with what they need. High value, non-managerial positions need one track while there is another track for management. How this breaks out in individual companies will differ. But, if there are front line positions that have highly specialized expertise, direct impact on the profits and a compensation structure geared toward those under 30 (or 25) years old, there is a gap. In theses situations, keeping people focused on what they like to do, if they do it well, is beneficial to all.

By combining two paths into one, we have mixed and blurred our view of very distinct skill sets and fostered an environment which ultimately leads to the Peter Principle. The assumption that because someone is very good at doing something (whatever that is), they should manage others who do it, is a false assumption. The inverse is also true; an individual need not be the best 'doer' in order to be a great manager. This is a very hard reality for many to accept in our current paradigm.

If you are the best at what you do, then the expectation is that you should not have to report to someone who gets paid more and is not as good at it as you are. Further, since compensation structures encourage management paths, the best doers are pushed to become managers, despite the fact that these are two very different skill sets. In the current environment, where managers often falsely delegate (essentially remaining doers), it is very easy to accept this reality.

Companies need to clearly identify two paths for careers: managerial and non-managerial. Recognizing these distinctions allow individuals and companies to align people and company needs more effectively, create more stability and align compensation with value. It is a big shift. I have seen what real expertise can do. I have seen what really good managers can do. Fostering both for their distinct value would improve company performance and individual satisfaction.

social Playbook from 360i

2009-08-20T15:37:00.003-05:00

If your working a social plan, or overseeing an agency or team that is, this is a good read:

360i Social Marketing Playbook

View more documents from Lorenzo Mendoza.

Google Search CPA's Fatal Attraction

2009-06-23T08:37:00.014-05:00

On the surface, CPA programs sound great. Essentially, set it and forget it... except for the non-thinking administrative mess that accompanies these programs. Unfortunately, what starts out as a simplified way to manage a search program ultimately causes search atrophy.

As the market changes, and opportunities arise, or problems start to materialize, they are masked by the CPA number. So long as that is locked, you don't have to worry about the leading KPIs. The reason for a CPA program is so you do not have to get into these details... they are someone else's problem.

This works fine in scenarios where you don't control the inputs anyway. Affiliate marketing is a great example of a program that can really only work on a CPA basis. Display programs, depending on your objectives, can also work okay here, in a limited fashion. But search has so many factors that are in your control, and enable you to optimize, it is silly to forgo the opportunity. Either you, or your agency should be focused on leveraging what search can offer.

To that end, beyond the masked KPIs, you have the more harmful affect of minimizing optimization opportunities. No online program, search or otherwise, is static. Either you change, or the market place changes. If you are doing your job, you will continue to change ahead of the market. With CPA, testing the end-to-end implications of a program are virtually impossible. If you change site metrics, this changes media performance; media that is opaque in a CPA program.

You miss the opportunity to identify nuances that lead to incremental and even big improvements in performance. As you improve site buy flow and conversions increase, you get more sales, but you lose the efficiencies you earned by creating the change. Yet the media properties benefit with higher compensation against the same work effort.

Part of the cycle of improving performance includes wider margins on existing media vehicles which can then be applied to new media opportunities. Consider...

Before conversion increases:

10,000 sales at $50 CPA = $500,000 / month in media spend at say, 40% media margin = $200,000 contribution.

Increase conversion by 10%.

11,000 in sales at $50 CPA = $550,000 at 40% margin = $220,000 contribution. Since your cost basis always moves with volume, you never become more efficient.

Now, assume you are managing search directly, not on a CPA. You will go from 10,000 to 11,000 in sales and pocket the entire additional $50K instead of $20k.

You go from $200,000 in contribution to $250,000 in contribution, or 25% improvement vs 10%.

Your margin goes from 40% to 50%.

If someone gave you a 25% bump in your budget, what would you do with it?

A couple of years ago, I went into how this can help agencies and clients in this post. The bottom line for clients & their agencies, is that keeping control of this is good for both. The comp model in the post, ironically, is performance based. The difference between what I propose and what Google is proposing is that by controlling the media all the way through to the purchase, you can optimized the whole chain. With strong agency / client relationships, agencies have an opportunity to increase compensation IF they increase the client's profitable volume, and clients have visibility into the agency's profitability, ensuring that margins really are being used to seek more sales.

This kind of optimization cycle is only available if you have end-to-end control of the process. Continual testing of keywords, copy, site layout, buy flow, offers, etc, is the only way to maximize what the web, and search in particular, have to offer.

More on the Google CPA from MediaPost.com

Federal legislation... volume on tv commercials?

2009-06-12T17:20:00.001-05:00

Congress is about to entertain a bill that would regulate the broadcast volume for television commercials.

Rep. Eshoo introduced the H.R. 6209, the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM Act) to address loud commercials.

Economy down. Auto sector struggling. 9.4% unemployment. North Korea playing with nukes. Environment & economy dependent on one of the most unstable parts of the world. Families without health care. Kids not reading at grade level in many schools...

Does broadcast volume of tv commercials fit? Of all the things our "leaders" should be addressing, that we as individuals cannot affect, is this even worthy of a conversation?

Display Ad and Search Relationship Research

2009-05-31T12:03:00.001-05:00

ComScore and iProspect studies on search and display ad relationships.

Key take-aways:
- Though it depends on the industry, there is potentially an additional activity of 60% versus the direct clicks (31% click, 21% say they type in the URL - iProspect).
- Approximately 1/3 of users have clicked on a display ad in the last 30 days(ComScore) to 6 months (iProspect)
- Conversely, 2/3 of users do not click on any display ads
- About 16% of users make up 80% of the clicks from display ads (ComScore)
- CTRs are in general decline, at about 0.1% (ComScore)
- Display ad value is quantifiable beyond the CTR based on search and direct URL entry following ad exposure.

Display ad costs should be measured against the incremental value based on KPI lift factors. On average display exposure increases site visits from 4.5% (control group not exposed to display ads) up to 6.6% (test users exposed to display ads). In other words, the incremental lift is 2.1 percentage points. (ComScore). Views and repeat visit tracking are important parts of media metrics. There is no way to properly assign value with out them.

Both studies are worth reading.
ComScore: How Online Avertising Works: Wither the Click?
iProspect: Search Engine Marketing and Online Display Advertising Integration Study

Narrative:
iProspect released "Search Engine Marketing and Online Display Advertising Integration Study" this month. Though it is very thought provoking, it needs to be interpreted from the right perspective. Primarily, this is not a study about ads, it is a study about users. This distinction is important because if the presentation the numbers is not interpreted properly, it can lead to some erroneous conclusions.

To illustrate my point:

"The key message from this study is that online display advertising is far from dead -- its 31% direct response rate confirms that," said Robert Murray, CEO, iProspect.

When we look at response rates, we look at how many times our ads are clicked versus how many times they are shown, or the CTR. What Robert Murray is referring to is that 31% of the people surveyed said that the had clicked on a display ad at some point over the past 6 months.

As I looked at the iProspect study, I recalled the ComScore study released in December 2008. It reviewed integration from an ad perspective and the user perspective rather than just the user perspective alone. I think this is important for several reasons:

1) Cost basis: most display advertising is still sold on a CPM. The value of a "user" has to be relative to the cost of the communication.
2) Industry: behavior varies greatly by industry.
3) Exposure: are users cognizant of how many exposures they receive before they react. This goes to cost basis.

When we look at each part of these two studies, we see some commonalities:

1) Both studies found that roughly 1/3 of users clicked on an add (ComScore in the last month, iProspect in the last 6 months).
2) There are strong synergies between search and display advertising. ComScore showed a 38% lift in advertiser's branded search after display ad exposure, while the iProspect study simply showed that, of those who said they saw an ad, the response of 27% was to conduct a search on the brand, product or category.

The divergence
As a person with roots in media, on and off-line, every time someone suggests buying more ads, or bigger ads, I ask several questions. Key among them is: What is the incremental value of spending the money?

This is where the ComScore study is more helpful. It measures the lift in KPIs, such as site visits, competitive searches, TM / Brand searches and incremental sales. Contrast this with the iProspect study, which is survey based, and depends on users recollections over a six month period, with no control group against which to compare the test subjects. If you want to know the real value of additional advertising, it has to be measured not in absolute terms, but relative to the outcome of not increasing the advertising. In other words, what was the incremental affect received from spending more money.

One of the interesting findings on the ComScore study is that there is a 45.7% lift in site visits over a 4 week period as a result of exposure to display ads . Of those not exposed to the advertising, 4.5% eventually reach the test advertiser's site, while 6.6% of those who were exposed reached the site, either by clicking, using search or navigating to the site directly. Another way to read this is that 68% of the people who reached the display advertisers' sites would have done so with or with out the advertising. So while the total visit was 6.6% of the users who saw display ads, these ads contributed 2.1% of the users' visits.

What is important is that the results vary greatly by industry. From a low of 21% lift in the travel industry to a high of 114% in the auto (though with a very low base % of visits to start).

On the flip side, there is also an increase in competitors' sites visits following exposures to display ads. Over a 4 week period, the lift is 23.4% (13.5% vs 16.6% of users).

In essence, what display advertising does is spark shopping activity in general.

In addition to the number of people who eventually reach the advertisers' sites, the way they get there is important; it directly affects the core measurement of CTR. Every one I speak with about the impact of display advertising acknowledges that the click is only one way to measure the influence of display advertising, but they are usually lost when trying to measure non-click activity. The iProspect study shines a light on the other behaviors as reported by users. 21% said they typed in the advertiser's URL, while 27% did a search on the product, brand or company. Combining this insight with the lift that the ComScore study shows, and you can get some idea of a factorization you can apply to the CTR to estimate net visits resulting from display advertising. Though it depends on the industry, there is potentially an additional 60% versus the direct clicks (31% click, 21% say they type in the URL).

All this amounts to one fact: Direct measurements are ineffective. The only way to assess the real value of advertising is with robust tracking and analytics.

30-Second Collision: Short Tail Media Video Unit

2009-05-11T11:31:00.006-05:00

David Payne, CEO of Short Tail Media is pushing for 30 sec (& 15 sec) video commercials online through its new service Digital 30 (D30). He is working with publishers to test a :30 spot between sites, with Reuters being the first to sign on. Expect to see some this summer.

According to Payne, publishers need to "stop worshiping, and start interrupting the almighty user."

In my last post, I talked about the extreme of only looking at the user and sacrificing real revenue generating opportunities as we saw in YouTube. On the other hand, Hulu was balancing three constituents: Users, Advertiser, Content Providers. I prefer the Hulu approach; its sustainable over time.

Hulu is converging needs.

Payne is directly colliding the need for more revenue producing ads with the belief that users will not accept this. He his banking on the idea that the increase revenue from the new ad units will off-set any revenue losses stemming from user abandonment.

His perspective challenges the ethos of the internet (if there is one) as well as commonly held assumptions about potential user behavior.

Is he right? I don't know. But, I give him a lot of credit for pushing a very radical approach to an old problem... maximizing sustainable revenue.

Media week article

Video - actively converging

2009-05-04T08:27:00.008-05:00

Hulu and YouTube represent terrific and timely examples of the difference between converging and not converging.

YouTube started out purely focused on the user. This is great for them / us. We can put on funny, if not inane, material, share guitar riffs, and see some amazing car racing . We get to see videos from around the world that we would not be able to see otherwise. It gives us something to talk about off-line as well. However, it is not a sustainable model as it exist. Google is attempting to monetize the traffic to YouTube and, though not transparent, indications are that revenue may not be out-pacing cost.

Hulu, headed by Jason Kilar, recognized that successful ideas are multi-facetted. When launching Hulu, he and his team identified three constituents: Users, Content Providers and Advertisers. Focussing too much on one to the detriment of the others puts the entire operation at risk. This is a tough path to follow, but he is doing it.

The difference between the two is simple; not only in content, which is quite obvious, but more importantly, the attitude during the initial concept development. Like too many online start ups, YouTube began without looking at the whole landscape. When Chen, Hurley and Karim started YouTube in 2005, it was focused on allowing users to share their videos. In a world where VC was pouring in, long-term financial sustainability was not built in. This is not to say that it was not considered, but the experience itself was built around its absence. It was created with the notion that everyone wants their content up and advertisers were not welcome. In short, YouTube only considered a small segment of a very large group of constituents. Now, with a lot of traffic, monetization and quality content is an after thought. They are now attempting to force ads into the experience that had been ads-free.

Hulu recognized from beginning that long term sustainability depends on a realistic view of "life after launch." By building in respect for content, and the rights of the content owner, as well as consideration for advertisers, Jason set the stage for a viable model. True, given the parentage of the company, content providers could not possibly be forgotten. But, considering the way it is working out, this is actually a good thing.

Internet "purest" would argue that the end users should be the only consideration. This holdover from the early days of the web has proven untenable; it collides with economic realities. Colliding can be good, but not in this case. Hulu chose to Converge the interest of multiple constituencies based on a realistic assessment of the landscape before them. It works.

2009-04-15T00:42:00.001-05:00

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the distinction between building a brand and leveraging it. In short, building is what you do up to the time the consumer is ready to buy, while leveraging it is what you do when you are pulling all the pieces together to close the sale. The point was / is, that building or leveraging the brand is not about the media, marketers, brand managers or agencies. It is about the consumer and where are they in the shopping process.

This discussion most often comes into play around search and the branded keywords. Too often, marketers focus in the medium, or in this case, the branded keyword. I believe this media-centric dialogue misses the point and mentioned that broadening the perspective goes beyond search:

"While this conversation regularly comes up in search, the same discussion needs to happen around display. Geo-targeting, behavioral targeting and other user profiling capabilities allow us to learn about consumer intent. As they visit sites, they may indicate that it is no longer time to tell them about Honda's great quality, but instead focus on the great gas mileage of the Civic, or even the service and quality of a specific dealer. We have to be more open to the intent in order to provide the consumer with the right information."

A piece in Media Post's Behavioral Insider by Steve Smith discusses how Teracent is helping HP target the message based on consumer's online, and off-site behavior. Chip Hall, Sr VP at Teracent, discusses the changes in messaging base on real-time data and the progression of message targeting from the very broad when data is scarce, to very targeted when there is more data upon which to base the targeting decisions. It is all consumer, not media, centric.

At no time does this suggest that we ignore brand. It is always part of the equation. But this is how it plays into the message evolution as we learn about the consumer. BT is still rather young. But, its premiss is focussed on what the consumer wants to hear and see given their place in the buying process and not on a binary decision of "this is a branding vehicle and this one is not". Two consumers can get two different messages from the same display space (or anywhere) from the same advertiser. The focus of the message, pure brand or focussed on attributes, will depend on what you know about the consumer at that moment.

2009-04-14T00:51:00.000-05:00

Mike Masnick presentation at mesh. Thought provoking perspective on the new business model. It is about creating scarcity and providing a reason to buy. This model is one that we need to take to heart, especially as the web has changed the way we interact with prospective customers.

In addition to the content, his presentation style is one of the best I have seen.

SEO Insight from Randfish

2009-04-09T08:37:00.001-05:00

As always, randfish has great SEO insights into the components and relative importance with regards to organic page rankings for Google.

You will read many responses to his post. My caution when I see these conversations start is, don't focus on one or two things only. As you will see from his historical graph, a component's importance changes over time. The best practice has always been to focus on good, holistic site / page development with a great deal of attention paid to the user. Don't chase the shinny object of today; keep it in mind along with all the others.

When you talk to folks at Google, or listen to them present, the common theme is a quality user experience. Combine this with good technical practices in site development, link partnerships (intent on good user experience) and you are most of the way there.

Social is growing up... a little

2009-04-07T22:28:00.000-05:00

Marketers have been approaching social with one of two lenses: 1) this is too risky, the content is too much on the edge, or 2) this is a group we cannot reach anywhere else, and it gives us a chance to speak to a new audience in a different way. Both set the Social media (primarily networks) among the fringe to either be avoided or chased.

Well, thats changing rapidly. Social networks are not just for the young people any more. Older folks, driven primarily by Facebook's growth, are a growing part of the social network community according to Hitwise.

The way we viewed social networks over the past few years needs to be broadened. A 40 year old mother of three is not going to respond the same as a 20 year old college student, and now they are both participating. When looking at content, creating content, engaging the people, we were focused on a segment that was rather well separated from other segments; they were actively on the social networks while the older segments were avoiding them. Now, with the fluidity of information and the adoption of social networks by a broader array of people, anything we do in one segment will quickly become visible to the others. The chances of alienating your base while trying to go after the new segments just increased.

This situation is reminiscent of an Oldsmobile move in the 90's; that was a conscious effort to cater to a new demographic. If you remember Oldsmobile, you may also remember there last major campaign "Not your father's Oldsmobile." A big, national campaign. It failed to gain traction with the younger buyers, and simultaneously alienated the then current (but aging) customer base. That was an overt decision to go after one market while knowingly pushing away another. It failed.

In social, this same thing is very possible, but may be the result of unintended consequences rather than a strategic shift.

So, what is the best way to approach social? Actually, the same as it always was. Be true to yourself, your brand and your core customer base. It is not about Social media. It is about your customer. Social is another, and much more involved, way to interact with them.

The right perspective

2009-04-07T11:00:00.000-05:00

"...just because we beat the competition yesterday doesn't mean that the competition isn't going to come back and crush us tomorrow."

Steve Baldwin MediaPost 4/6/2009

Social Media Embraced for years

2009-04-06T11:06:00.000-05:00

Social media has taken a seat at the CMO table.
BrandWeek's article, recounts that some companies have been stepping up social. I have heard their stories in the past. But recently, with all the hype, we seem to have lost site of the fact that social media has been actively engaged by companies like Wells Fargo for years. They were ahead of the curve in 2005. But the reasons for going into social are not alway clear, nor the same for different companies.

There is a lot new with Social. But, there is also a lot old. Unfortunately, with the net being all about tracking, the mainstream has (until recently) discounted social media as an important driver. They are now learning from the "old hands." In the case of Dell, it was about containing the bad. In others, like Coke, it is about brand engagement. In others, it is about connecting the activity to a sale. The key to a good social marketing effort is to decide, before you dive in, what it is you are shooting for - setting your objectives. This isn't new... it's good old fashion marketing. Old principles still apply to new media.

Large, stable companies (even in this economy), have shown that social engagement on the net works. These are traditional marketers (I'd even throw Dell in there, though many would disagree), that demonstrated the value of good planning while leveraging the opportunities of new media.

http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/digital/e3ie2a94edbc5b0a7c1150d6cbf4741dede?pn=1

Are you building a brand, or leveraging it?

2009-03-29T20:07:00.001-05:00

As we look at the brand, particularly online, we have to acknowledge that there are places where we are building brands, and places where we are mostly leveraging them. What makes this difficult is that there is no clear and absolute delineation. In the 'old' world, television was seen as the place to build brands. Newspapers or yellow pages leveraged them (with some building going on)... directing people to where to find 'it' and make the purchase (over simplification, but you get the idea). Today, even television is not completely dedicated to brand building, but has elements of leveraging. How do we know which we should be doing?

Building a brand is all the stuff we do before the consumer is ready to buy. Leveraging the brand is what we do when the consumer is ready to make the purchase; it is when we pull together the 'feeling' and equity we have created, then relate this to the consumer and their immediate need. We leverage the Brand as we sell the product or service. Which one we are doing at any point in time is less about us, and all about the consumer; at least it should be.

What brings me to this point is the perspective that the "brand" keywords are upper funnel and need to be controlled by the parent company, presenting the brand's message. On the surface, this rationale may appear solid. However, this is the web. Old perceptions of how the brand is used by the consumer no longer apply. When someone types in "Honda", they are as likely looking for a place to buy a Honda CR-V as they are trying to figure out what the "Honda" brand stands for and what types of cars Honda has. Brand messaging control in search is about the company. Understanding the intent of the search is about the consumer.

While this conversation regularly comes up in search, the same discussion needs to happen around display. Geo-targeting, behavioral targeting and other user profiling capabilities allow us to learn about consumer intent. As they visit sites, they may indicate that it is no longer time to tell them about Honda's great quality, but instead focus on the great gas mileage of the Civic, or even the service and quality of a specific dealer. We have to be more open to the intent in order to provide the consumer with the right information.

In reality, everything we do either builds or diminishes the brand. We know that the web changes the way we interact with the consumers, but brands need to understand that it also means we have to be prepared for a much wider range of messaging than just the brand's highlights. It is very likely that, when someone uses a branded keyword term, the best service a brand can provide is to step back and let a local dealer lead the conversation. If this is the case, but the brand insists on leading with a very upper funnel message, instead of leveraging what they have built, they end up diminishing it and frustrating the consumer.

If you're asking, you missed the point of social

2009-03-27T14:39:00.000-05:00

"If I start engaging in social media, don't I lose control of my message?"

If this is your question, you need to start looking more at the web... you never had control.

Social media is not about control, it's about engaging, learning and, if your true to your customers, adding to the conversation.

Branded Keyword Bidding vs Fixed Placement

2009-03-27T14:28:00.000-05:00

Today, Matt Greitzer of Razorfish proposed search engines offer a branded keyword lock-in option for brand owners. Essentially, pay a fee, not a PPC, and then be guaranteed first position, with all other competing ads aligned on the rail (but they should still be part of the auction model). The suggestion on setting the fee is:

"The fee should reflect the incremental value of branded keyword clicks along with a reasonable premium for price stability and the brand value of a guaranteed top position."

This reflection came after being told that the CPC of a branded Keyword increased 300% over the prior month, with no changes at all on their end. I'll forgo overly commenting on the "set it and forget it" PPC management strategy this statement implies (unintentionally as razorFish is a good agency), and instead focus on the "value" proposition.

We have target metrics to align costs and value. If the branded keyword is costing 300% more than a month ago, then somewhere a competitor figured out their metrics placed the value of the keyword at a significantly higher cost than they were previously bidding. In effect, the market has provided you with the potential value of the keyword. If you are not seeing the ROI on a transactional basis (since this is your brand, the the competition is leveraging it for the transaction), then your competitor has either figured out something that you missed, or is messing with the bid landscape (which will subside as they go bust).

If you then take the transactional value, add to it the brand value and then layer on top of that a 'stabilization fee', you end up paying more and losing more upside, than if you simply deploy the resources necessary to properly manage the program.

A fixed fee is great for agencies. Tack on 15% and you can set the program, visit the results monthly, give your clients a report, and send them a bill. This is reminiscent of when I was selling online advertising back in 1995, the precursors to search and IYPs of today. At the end of the contract, the client's questions came: "what did I get for my spend?" and "what, exactly, did you do to earn the commission?"

One of the attractions of search engine marketing is that, if done properly, it propels us into an understanding of our clients' business from pre-click to sale, and being able to clearly demonstrate value. We run programs that close online as well as offline; our compensation only happens when our clients close the sale. We spend our own money, track results with our clients, and run the risk of losing money if we screw up. This model is one of the reasons our clients have come to us to run their corporate search programs.

Since this is our own money, you might think that I would be in favor of fixed placements, for all the reasons Matt points out. However, stability comes at a price... growth. If we see that our CPCs are increasing day over day, we have to ask ourselves, "did someone figure something out that we missed?" Rather than seeking the shelter provided by a fix placement model, the beauty of the market-based system of search is that it gives you day-to-day, hour-to-hour feedback on how well you are doing. Not just in how well you hold your keyword position, but how well you help your clients grow their sales.

So, rather than suggest the engines shelter us for the competition, I would propose that the onus is on us:

1) Focus on the entire buying process to align value
2) Continuous conversion / sales monitoring
3) Use transactional metrics to assess relative performance
4) If there is a CPC change, investigate the competition and ask yourself what they are doing better

I understand that these proposals do nothing to mitigate the CPC fluctuation, and are at the heart of most SEM, but when simply followed, they can do much to help improve the value you receive out of each click. Very often, I am telling people that good SEM is not rocket science, just good hard work (with some social and statistical science thrown in :) ).

Finally, I have to make the point that I am not thoroughly convinced that a first position strategy is necessarily warranted. Of course, if the c-level office wants it, you give it to them. But, as a corner stone of SEM, this strategy is has not always born fruit and made financial sense. We have to be very clear on the motive for any postion, if any, we target for our clients.

Yahoo!, the short sighted view of search.

2008-09-04T20:30:00.000-05:00

As Yahoo! evolves its search algorithm and pushes forward with its Google partnership, we need to be clear that Panama is not and never can be adwords in function, nor in spirit.

On Google, there is a long tail. If you are smart enough to recognize a search term that others are not bidding on (or doing so minimally), or have optimized an obscure term, you are rewarded. You have a relatively minimum bid landscape to reduce your cost and you can isolate the phrase to maximize ROI. You can even go further and isolate the match type, recognizing that someone who types in a phrase exactly might (and often does) behave very differently than someone who clicked on a broad match delivery. As the markets mature, others jump in, raising the price of the keyword (and thus Google's revenue), and you move on to another group of phrases. It works out well for the advertiser, as they get more sales, and it works for the searcher, as we have to be smarter about what we put in front of them and how we treat them post-click.

Yahoo! however does not care. After all, why let you get a click for $0.25 on a long tail term when they can map that term to a more popular one and drive a $1.00 cpc? It does not matter to Yahoo! that the post click behavior is different. Nor is Yahoo! willing to take the long-term view (like Google) that will not only deliver higher quality search results, but could actually increase their revenue by helping develop the number of phrases that have value to advertisers.

Think about the Google deal. Yahoo! has far fewer phrases on which advertisers are bidding, or terms on which they are bidding very low. This was imposed on advertisers because of the mapping of larger groups of keywords to a single keyword or phrase. There was no value in bidding on these keywords, and Yahoo! did not care; they forced an artificially higher cpc that could not be optimized. Google, however maintained a system where we can optimize to the long tail, making our ability to optimize based on post click behavior easier, and thereby increasing the value of these long tail terms. Now that Google has fostered the market for these terms, Yahoo! is going to de-map many of their terms (they have already started), so that they can benefit from the mature market that we were able to create with Google.

Unfortunately, the inventory on Yahoo! is going to dilute the value that was built up in the Google ecosystem... not that Yahoo! cares; they'll get their revenue. Yahoo! would not work with us (advertisers) to develop the value within their own search product. Instead, they waited until the value was created within Google, and then decided to de-map keywords for advertisers in order to serve up the Google ad. If the metrics on Google's adwords program are skewed, then we have to drop the bids or drop out of the keywords. For those who think Yahoo! won't be big enough to matter, remember, we are dealing with a large number of low volume, long tail terms. Small changes make a big difference in the back end metrics.

Beyond the search terms themselves, Yahoo! match types are not optimization friendly either. On Yahoo!, if you are bidding on a standard match basis (meaning you show up when the user types in your keyword / phrase), you can be trumped by different terms that are on advanced match bidding (meaning Yahoo! decides there is some relationship between the search and the keyword). Yahoo! has made it so this is likely, based on the bid amount. So, even if you have an exact / standard bid against a keyword, Yahoo! will see what other keywords in your account might actually qualify, and then de-dupe the keywords based on ranking... The bid amount is very influential. Look at the impression distribution, it varies widely from day to day. Yahoo! will tell you that is because users' search patterns change widely day-by-day. Our experience shows us otherwise... there are trackable patterns, not wide swings.

(We know that this is also technically possible on Google. But, you can see your impression share in Google reports that clearly indicate that your exact match keywords are not getting pushed aside. Yahoo! has no view into this.)

Unlike Google, Yahoo! does not encourage multiple match type bidding. It doesn't matter that their are two different post-click behaviors based on the match type. The system was designed to lump everything together, and then see where they (Yahoo!) can make the most money.

What Yahoo! has not figured out (that Google figured out a long time ago), is that the post click value is what advertiser care about. Yes, they give lip service to this concept. But, when they deliver a search product that actually backs up the rhetoric, we can start to believe that they get it. Give us: true match type bidding, keyword delivery unfettered by mapping, real reporting, truly targetable negative keyword implementation (match type, no limits). Until then, they will follow well behind Google with a me-too (Panama) product that appears designed to maximize short term per-click revenue while giving no care for the long-term devaluation of the Yahoo! product.

Google is no longer going to de-activate keywords, and will have on the fly Quality Score

2008-08-29T18:38:00.000-05:00

Google is removing the min bid rules.

Essentially Min bids and inactive keywords are out. Instead, you will see a First Page bid estimates and keywords will always be active (though not always showing because of relatively low QS). The other change will move from periodic quality review and score updates to dynamic, on-the-fly scoring. At this time, I am focused on the minimum bid changes.

What this means to you depends on where you are in the marketing chain. From the campaign managers to the product managers, these changes can have very little, or a very big impact. There are however, much broader implications for those who are managing the spectrum on online activity and relationships. In some cases, there is only one channel that a company will use. While I believe this is very limiting to the potential benefit, it is easier for someone to manage - fewer plates spinning. It is only justified if there are no venues for exploiting more online channels. For those who choose the harder, but more profitable road of managing multiple channel types, this gets interesting.

___________________

Affiliate / e-tail program managers will have to pay attention to the landscape with the new changes. There are several ways to manage the search landscape ranging from no bidding to a free for all. Though they are quite common, I have never been a fan of bid caps as a way to manage programs. The market is too dynamic for a fixed value to have relevancy over time. As a way to keep some people out, there is a strategy to set bid caps so low that you know it is below reasonable minimum bids ( a de facto "no bid" rule). So, it is possible that players who would not spend the min $1.00 or $5 or $10, can now appear for $0.50. Discouraged from the market place before, these people placed virtually no price pressure on keywords. Now, they have a chance to enter the market, get some results and start appearing. Do you have any mechanism to maximize profit by ensuring only your best partners are showing up?

Before you think, "no bidding on my brand" as a way to keep it easy, be leery of this relatively lazy strategy - it is the realm of the naive and ignorant. With it, your life may seem easier, but you give up a chance to let your best partners help you while simultaneously exposing your marketing underbelly to the competition.

Competing brands or products will now find it easier to enter your bid landscape. If you are Sony and none of your affiliates or e-tailors are allowed to bid on your brand, minimum bids often made it cost prohibitive for your competitors to do so as well (quality score issues created high minimum bids). So, you could possibly control your brand's bid landscape (for many categories, even the minimum bids have not discouraged bidding on competitive brand keywords). This is no longer true. Mitsubishi, Sharp and others will not be hit with minimum bids and can enter your playground much more easily. So rather than have e-tailors that target segments of your customers to whom you cannot cater, you have given up the landscape to your competitors.

While this has always been an issue for the "no-bid" group, the reality becomes even more severe once the Minimum Bid is removed as a competitive obstacle. I can tell you, we will leverage it; any good SEM will. Your best defense to to build up a small, but strong group of e- tailors that will promote your product and services. Take up the bid landscape for your brand with partners that can leverage segments of your market where they are stronger than you are. This is not an issue of duplicate listing. It is an issue of directing users to experiences which are truly geared for their stage in the buying cycle or buying motivation.

Some segments are upper funnel. Corporate sites provide a level of confidence and information sources that upper funnel users are looking for. Other sites, typically e-tail sites with time and resources to optimize against conversion, are far more adept and managing the lower end of the funnel. Well over a year ago, I vented against the branded keyword sales being a given.

I have seen first hand the differences in subtle changes, importance of MVT for the experience and managing SEM based on long term / annual trend performance.

Combine this with a compensation structure that encourages performance rather than one which simply encourages spending (cost plus) and the right partners, and you can develop a channel that is motivated to drive down market costs (their margins are directly affected) while maximizing your sales.

This change in Google's policy provides and opportunity for online marketers to evaluate their search programs and how they will manage the diverse consumer base. They can either take the easy way out and limit sales, or they can maximize their market potential.

When she is ready to listen, do you know what to say?

2008-07-23T15:29:00.000-05:00

Seth Godin:
Are they Ready to Listen? (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/07/are-they-ready.html)

A simple and at the same time often missed thought, Seth Godin points out the issue of timing in marketing.

To prove his point, he did some field research (impromptu it appears):

"Every single one a demographically perfect match for my handbook. After 100,000 people had walked by and we'd sold only one book, I lowered the price from around $10 to $1 just to prove my point--that it wasn't the book and it wasn't the price, it was the ability of the audience to listen that mattered."

Here he had what was the perfect product, with the perfect audience and his sales were abysmal. Sometimes the market is just not ready to listen.

Oddly, even in search, where someone raised her hand and says "I'm listening", we can see drastic swings in sales or other end metric. Take a look at time of day conversions, time of week, month, year, geography, etc. Conversion rates can vary greatly.

So, this begs the question: When she is ready to listen, do you know what to say?

When a person searches, does she click on your ad because it has the right message, or because nothing is right and she is just hunting down the list? Even if you're the best in a group that is bad, your ad is still bad. Getting the right ad, in front of the right search at the right time is an iterative process. It is not a case of making your ad different for difference's sake, but for the consumer's sake.

The search term (not the keyword), is the key indicator of what the consumer wants to hear. It is the nuance of the search term that needs to inform the messaging. By vigilantly combing the query data, you can identify new ad groups with more focussed messaging and important negatives that will help you ensure that you direct the searcher to the appropriate campaign / ad group. This can be tedious and manual work. But, failure to do this on a continual basis can create mediocre results from an otherwise stellar product.

Further, if you are familiar enough with your consumer, you may know that the same search term has different meanings based on the time of day, week, or month; same keyword, different message. Early in the month may be the time she is collecting product information, while later, she is looking for a reason to buy from you. If you help her in the beginning, you have a better chance of getting her to listen later. Try too hard to sell her in the beginning and you lose an opportunity for the sale later.

Continual copy and experience testing are key to being sure you are ready when the consumer tells you she is listening. Search is about nuance; what the consumer is telling you and, in turn, what you are saying in response. The only way to know if you heard correctly is to test, continually.

In short, by paying attention to, and understanding where, when and how the consumer tells you she is listening, you have a better chance of telling her what she wants to hear... just like any relationship.

SEM best kept secret is actually an open violation of Google's rules

2008-06-26T17:49:00.000-05:00

Secondary Search: Search Marketing's Best Kept Secret By Larry Organ is one of those articles that just makes me wonder how far out of touch some, usually well informed and respected, people are about search. I am all for having an objective view of our search programs. But to suggest that running a second search team, bidding on the same keywords to obtain multiple positions for your site without acknowledging the fundamental problems could make one believe this is a quick and easy path.

"Having a second, walled off team allows organizations to do things that would be impossible under a single roof. For example, the major search engines make it very difficult to lock up multiple paid positions within a single search campaign. But a secondary search team makes this an easy-to-achieve goal. An organization's primary SEM team can concentrate on gaining top placement for primary keywords while a secondary team can focus on lower positions."

On the face of it, this is a direct violation of Google double ad serving policy. Google will link the two accounts that are trying to do this. If you think you can simply create a second site, Google will catch that too and link the URLs. If people spend the time trying to do the right thing, rather than finding ways to mess with the rules, they would get better, longer-term results.

"Testing is another advantage. Any time an organization can see its primary SEM efforts (the control) compared against an entirely separate campaign (the test), great insight can be gained."

My experience is that good testing structure needs good coordination. You can not tell your core SEM team to do nothing while the other team makes changes. You're playing two different positions (assuming you can keep Google in the dark), you are going to get different results. If you are isolating a variable, you do not need two teams to do this. The whole concept ignores some fundamentals of search. Consider that Google has a sliding (though secret) scale for using CTR in the quality score; it is based on ad position. The vary idea is that ads in different positions will get different results. This is not a reflection on the team that holds either spot on the listings. If you want to run a true test, focus on the copy utilized within a position, or the message connected to the landing page, or the point within the funnel to which you deliver the
prospect, or a host of any other variables. But to give one team positions 1-3 and another 3-6 or 6-9 and then compare the results is not a test.

If you want to compare the prowess of two agencies, fine. Give them separate assignment, normalize the results and see who comes out on top... then select ONE.

"And, of course, having multiple suppliers for any business process is the best way of keeping vendors honest."

I have never liked this motivation for a business practice. If you believe your vendors, or employees are going to screw you as soon as they get a chance, dump them, now. Don't create a situation that de-motivates honest partners and employees. Structured correctly, a good relationship rewards employees or agencies in proportion to their contribution to your success, thus minimizing the potential for getting complacent. I have always believed in looking for ways to motivate good partners rather than treat everyone like a potentially bad partner. You can not make someone honest. Either they are or they are not. Choose honest partners and accept the risk that sometimes we choose poorly, then move on.

Larry Organ has long and successful career as an entrepreneur and perhaps he has used, or does use this strategy currently. But, for most organizations, this path is not as straight forward as it would appear. Focus on good SEM / SEO. Gaming the system, which is what this strategy is, will only be short lived at best.

Promotions... build them and they will come?

2008-05-04T00:06:00.000-05:00

In the early 90's, one of the clients I had was an auto after-market repair chain that was a mix of corporate owned and franchise locations. The corporate client opened a new store not too far from a franchisee. The franchisee was up in arms. He shouted that the corporate location was stealing his customers, and as proof he showed a decreasing sales trend vs the prior year. The client asked us to run some numbers. Since we were 'third' party and both had business with us, the analysis would be accepted by both.

Well, to combat the corporate location, the franchisee began a series of promotions. x% off brake jobs, every x oil change free, free labor on exhaust installation, etc. The promotions worked really well... at lowering his average sale. It turns out, he was just running the promotions in store. There was no out-bound advertising to draw people in (or very little actually). So, while the corporate location did virtually nothing to decrease his customer base, his promotion-focused 'solution' did a lot to decrease the value of that base.

So, this is the lens through which I read the clickz article, "Promotions Could Overtake Display and Search Says Report" According to the study, search and display will peak, then decline while promotions will overtake them. The study was done by Borrell and Associates ( CEO Gordon Borrell) According to the study, display advertising is flat at about $12.6B and will decline by 1/2 over the next four years. "What's driving it is an overall dissatisfaction or nagging feeling on the part of advertisers that their advertising isn't working, or that they're overspending on it," said Borrell. "With the Internet, they can go straight to consumers. If they're having a sale, they can put it up on their Web site and consumers will come to them, and if their Web site is good enough, consumers will keep coming back."

"With the Internet, they can go straight to the consumers." I am not sure how. Decrease the display advertising, decrease the search
advertising, and anti spam laws are terrifying companies. How exactly do they go straight to the consumers with the promotions? The answer would appear to be, " put it up on their Web site and the consumers will come to them..". So, they are not attracting as many new customers (if any at all), and for any customer that would come to the site anyway, they will give them a discount - promotion.

Now, contrast Gordon Borrell's perspective with that of Jon Brancheau,(15 minute video) from GM. GM's director of media operations, Jon Brancheau, reveals the truth about the company's digital budget allocations in a frank chat from the 2008 iMedia Driving Interactive Summit. He is bullish on the digital space. Far from seeing digital as not working, this is a place to push the boundaries.

I cannot see a 50% decline in display advertising. As for it being flat the past 2 years, there has been an inventory influx with social media over that time. This has been high volume, low CPM inventory. Contrary to a retraction, as behavioral targeting improves and the niche value of the individual areas of inventory are identified, I believe this will increase. These low value segments will fine their place in the advertising ecosystem and help it grow.

I am not sure that Gordan Borrell believes in the 'build-it-and-they-will-come' myth that was debunked years ago. But the general sense of the article would lead one to believe that this is nearly so.

If we believe the advertising is not working, then we should fix it before we start leaving money on the table with unadvertised promotions. There really is no reason for any online advertiser to wonder if their efforts are working. We can track minutia. If we are unsure of performance, it is not a lacking of the media, but a lacking of our imaginations. There are many ways to tag metrics to our advertising. And it will probably cost less than running unadvertised promotions.

Google's form filling bot a benefit to some, scares others.

2008-04-23T00:08:00.000-05:00

Google's form filling bot a benefit to some, scares others. Kevin Heisler's article in SEW points out a dilemma that Google faces; in an attempt to homogenize the desires and intents of the masses, they will please some while angering, annoying or frightening others. I am not nearly as bothered by this as Kevin. As this question popped up in some communications in my company, my response was...

"Google has been inundated with questions as to why pages are not showing up in the index, only to explore the issue and find out that the only way to get to the pages in question is to submit a form of some type. The most obvious is  corporate home pages where the user has to select the country / region in a drop  down (Matt's example). Until this new release, Google couldn't crawl the pages from the home page. Other examples include product selection, category information where you  have to tell the site, via a form, what you want. Web masters and publishers  have be frustrated by their in ability to get a lot of content indexed because  managing it requires data driven applications and the use of forms. This is  Google's attempt to rectify the problem."

For those really worried about this, blocking the bot from sub pages can be done." 

Matt Cutts has a good post on this.

I think another aspect of blocking the bot is the robot.txt. As Matt says, "If you’d prefer that Google not crawl urls like this, you can use robots.txt to block the urls that would be discovered by crawling through a form."   These URLs should probably be part of the robot.txt file anyway. But if not, this should not be too arduous a task to add them. 
Any way, like so many other "things" Google, this seems bigger at first than it will in hind sight.

Enamored with Technology... the Google - ization of us all.

2008-04-22T00:10:00.000-05:00

At AdTech last week, I was going to meet some folks for dinner. I knew the
name of the restaurant and the street name, that's it. No address. So,
I pulled out my blackberry, went to Google, and wham! nothing. There
were some reviews, but not a listing. Next Yahoo! Go!. nothing. Again,
some web sites with reviews. Then Live. Bingo. No websites, no links.
just Name, Address and Phone number. Then click, a map. Oh, and I was
probably just a few feet from a yellow pages directory in the room. But, I wanted to use the technology. To me, this would seem like an obvious search. A mobile device and a specific restaurant name. Live knew (or guessed) exactly what I wanted. The other two were clueless.

But, I wanted it to work. I wanted technology to provide the answer. So, while it took a bit longer than I'd like, 1 of the 3 did work for me. But this got me thinking, 'are we too enamored with technology?' I could have picked up the phone, talked to concierge and had my directions faster. But, I didn't.

I see this take place in SEM all the time. Bid management tools, algorithms that can tell you (so they say) when someone is ready to buy, or can optimize your media program. I was on a call the other week with an agency that appeared to rely nearly 100% on statistically driven bid management programs. I wish I could say these things worked. But they don't. Sure, they can do what you tell them, adjusting bids based on historical inputs and manage to your parameters. But they can not 'read' the market. Adjusting to the unexpected is too cumbersome, and anticipating the new is impossible. If 'it' is not in the historical data, whatever 'it' is can not be considered by the technology.

People, however are very good at this. We know how our competition and consumers respond. We know our clients and their marketing calender. We can anticipate, and adjust and optimize. We can also take risks. This is where the rewards come from. Try something you've never done and see what happens. Algorithms can't do this SEO suffers from the same problem (but I think they get more feisty about it). SEO is a very manual service. No two SEO experts will agree on every 'best' way to do things. Computer programs that analyze your site are useless. A good SEO person will admit and adjust to stumbles. SEO programs will keep blundering along.

In a world where we really want technology to solve problems (and it does have its place among our tools), sometimes it is hard to accept that the real answer is not a technological one. Its human.

Experience, perception, anticipation, risk taking and hard work. These are the hallmarks of a good SEM shop.

Google diverting users to paid search listings

2008-03-26T03:47:00.000-05:00

We know that many searchers use the engines as navigational tools. Often,
users type the name of the company or site into the search box and go
to the the organic result. It is simple and easy. Even if you miss-type
the name, the engines have become smart enough to know what you want. Now,
Google is leveraging that habit to increase the paid search exposure.

I have no real problem with Google or Yahoo! displaying paid listings against the brand names. I think it is healthy. But the way they are doing it is crossing the line. Google is corralling the users down a path like a live stock. They are taking learned behavior that they cultivated and turning it around to force an unnecessary search purely for the purpose of having a second shot at monetizing the user. Then, offering them an extremely bad experience. If you type "best buy" in to the search, you get the results:

Notice that there is a 'search bestbuy.com' box just below the organic listing. As a user, this leads me to believe I am going to Best Buy. I am not. Instead, I am diverted to a page of Google paid search listings along with organic listings on Google for the best buy site. Again, one might say that this just gives users more options. Unfortunately, it presents the user with a VERY poor experience related to Best Buy. But, it does however, allow Google to present their paid search results. Type in "Panasonic tv." Is the best return for this search really the pedestal? How much reading does the user have to do to figure out what they might want?

Once you click to the page,to get to:

You now have to re-enter your search if you want another product.

Best Buy has determined that there are several products that users
usually want when they type in 'Panasonic tv'. Along with this, their experience testing provides insight into how best to present this to the users. They have also provided options to the consumer that can help them refine their quest even further. Google simply and arrogantly delivers a link that ends in a less than good experience. To get to something useful, you have to take 2-3 additional steps. This is bad for the consumer, bad for Best Buy and ultimately, will be bad for Google.

Google has often told us that their primary concern is user experience. What is better, a list of algorithmic returns based in general search knowledge gained by Google, or targeted returns with refined presentations based on the very focused experience of a retailer? Despite all their best efforts, Google is not able to delve into our experiences as online retailers. They sit in judgment of our experiences, deeming them poor, when we know as retailers that consumers prefer what we have (otherwise we wouldn't do it...we'd loose money). That is their right. But this hypocritical twist is about monetizing the search that was best served through the organic experience.

The user experience is clearly bad. If this were just some two-bit spammer site, I'd say 'who really cares?' But, this is Google, the champion of consumer experience. They justify their position with quality rankings on the basis of 'user studies'. 'Users' want more information, deeper links and more options. As retailers, we know that consumers get frustrated when they know what they want but can not find it, or have to work too hard to locate it. Based on their queues, we use our experience to delivery what they want, including options. We can provide easy links to options that help the consumer. Google's 'search' circumvents all that. It delivers the user to a poor experience that the retailer had no opportunity to cultivate. It frustrates the consumer and will hurt the retailer. This is a way to monetize and complicate a
consumer experience. Is this in response to paid search clicks being down? Is it an attempt to please Wall Street? Google is about business, but even with that in mind, this is too hypocritical.

Is that Local Search, or just Geo-targeted?

2008-03-20T22:34:00.000-05:00

The way I see it, local search is not just about a technical definition, it is a mindset. I started out in local search and at the time, the technology was not quite what it is today. But as I said, its as much a mind set as it is a technology.

Geo targeting is about what makes areas similar. No...seems counter intuitive? Most companies enter into geo targeting grudgingly. They look for as much commonality as they can between areas, see what is not common and make a decision about the value of changing what they do for each area. For efficiency sake, they hope that they have as few differences as possible and try to cater to the lowest common denominator. Where it makes sense, they will vary what they do. In search, they have the ability to message differently by area, adjust to the area's bid landscape and generally take into account some of the differences between areas.

However, what is the up shot? Is the bidding efficiency worth the extra work? Does message management have an ROI impact? While the answer is usually yes (at least in our industries) the fact that most marketers constantly strive to minimize the 'break down' of the geographies is very telling about the mindset of Geo targeting. If they could make all areas fit into one, nice big area and still make the same profit, they would do it.

Local search is about what makes an area unique. When you really get into local search, the last thing you want to do is find commonness with other things. There is a bit of pride in the distinctiveness of the business, the people and the town. You look for those things which have a real sense of the area. You can't fake it either. In the Chicago last summer, there was a series of beer commercials on the radio that tried to 'be local'. They got some of the names right, but the way they were said was clearly not 'local'. It was disingenuous; I bet you heard the same voice actor throwing out some lines about your town as well.

Out-of-towners can do local marketing in your area (or mine). But they have to have a natural curiosity about the business and, more importantly, about the people. They need to want to know what makes them unique.

I've heard that local search is when you are driving the consumer to a local business. Technically, perhaps, but what is being done differently for each location? In one of our industries, there is a 'leader' with locations throughout a large region of the US. They have the same ad running in all geographic areas. Technically, this is part of a local search program (I presume), but the ads do nothing to speak to the area around the locations. Maybe this works, but our experience is that every location's customer base is distinct, so our search team is managing messaging to the location level. Is there some commonality? Sure. But, we are constantly trying to see what makes one different from the others, and leverage that into an ad and an experience that optimizes the performance.

Is your program technically local? It is if it has a local destination, geo targeted paid search, locally targeted SEO efforts, map listings, iYP, and all the other online 'local' search stuff. But, is it local at heart? Will a person in Albany, NY be treated like the person from Miami, FL? Search in general, and local search in particular, is about the individual searcher. A true local search program is the epitome good SEM.

Yahoo! Search is Opening Up

2008-02-26T22:33:00.000-06:00

Yesterday Yahoo posted an announcement about a new enhancement to their search product.
Today, Amit Kumar presented this evolution at SMX West.

The new focus is on completing tasks. Relevant media, task oriented links, Structured data. The ranking in SERPS remains that same, but the results are more focused based on what the site owner believes the user is trying to do. It can provide additional links directly on the SERP, ratings, sending links, products, media etc. Instead of having the engines 'guess', we can use our knowledge of what the user needs.

The features and enhancements are app based. There will be data feeds and information providers give to Yahoo! via the apps to which site owners can gain access, add their listings and create better SERPs for their users. These feeds may be third party ratings, product reviews, media etc. The site owners can turned these feeds on / off. Just how this will be shall be announced over time in the near future.

A question on Yahoo!'s commitment to this came up: What if publishers push forward only to have Yahoo! pull the plug. Amit pointed to the overall commitment to the open platform as an indication of it's seriousness and support.

Question on timing. Since we are a closed group and won't blog about it.[[[-mage no longer avilable----] But...
App Prototype development can take about 1/2 day. If you put it on your own listing, it can go live quickly. (Sony puts a product app for Sony.com) If it is open to others to add to their site, then the app will be submitted to an approval process (Sony's app used by retailers).

Just some thoughts. Think about Auto manufactures providing review feeds, spec feeds, images, or video. Theses feeds can be provided as a Yahoo! app that dealers can then add to their listings. Any product manufacturer can do this. Menus for restaurant chains? Product reviews from Consumer Reports? This really opens up great information access at very relevant times. These data sets, media, and other information can be used by many sites, and the providers of the information gain exposure and traffic. This is a great tool for the site publishers and for consumers.

If the information is bogus, users will have the ability to report abuses

Microsoft Live and Targeting the Hispanic Marketplace - or not.

2008-02-19T21:08:00.000-06:00

I received an email last week from Joe Spector who launched the dating site QuieroLatino.com, targeted to the Hispanic market. He was put off by AdCenter's lack of targeting ability toward one of the fastest growing segments of the US population and wrote about his experience here.

I would say that it was not just the lack of targeting ability, but what set Joe off was the refusal to even accept sites that are in Spanish. I understand this in the early parts of development, as the resources to match and understand any Language is daunting. But, to have come this far along and not add it to the basic service is a poor oversight. The truth is, AdCenter, and Microsoft in general, is really bad at Search. They have made little progress in expanding market share. After targeting French Canadians and English speaking North Americans, they pretty much focused on repackaging their search service (live.com) and integrating into the MS applications.

While I understand Joe taking offense at their lack of acknowledgment of the importance of the Hispanic Market, the reality is that MS has just thrown up its arms with search in general. This isn't so much a dis of a particular market as it is a symptom of general ineptitude in the technology and marketing of search. Thus, MS is trying to buy what they can't build.

Taking a step back from Search, SEW has a good perspective from Maria Lopez-Knowles, senior vice president of MRM Worldwide, about Hispanic marketing online. She even recognizes MSN's Hispanic portal as a good example of the way to communicate to a bi-lingual market... the US Hispanic market. However, it is more than language. There is more than "one" Hispanic market. The Hispanic market is another example of people separated by a common language. Argentinian, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Honduran, etc are distinct cultures that share a common language. Mix this with the impact of Latino immigrants and pop-culture-influenced- 1st-generation-bi-lingual Latinos, and the divisions become more fragmented, even within households.

Mid last year, I spoke with Jon Santiago of Media 8 about communicating to the Hispanic Market (His firm specializes in marketing communications in South America and the Hispanic population in the U.S.). While he recognizes that in-language plays a role and markets his clients accordingly, he is quick to point out that in-culture is the key. This is a daunting task for any marketer. It means more than the one variable of language. It means an acknowledgment of many cultures under one label.

MSN's oversight is annoying. However, by focusing on the key cultural drivers of the various segments within the Hispanic Market, it becomes clear that there are many paths to successfully communicating and marketing to this diverse group within the U.S.. The use of an English language landing page, with links to the Spanish language content is not only an acceptable path, but one which may be in-line with the dual language mode of living pointed out by Maria Lopez-Knowles.

Google Share sees slight decline

2008-01-21T19:21:00.000-06:00

In November last year, I wrote a piecefor SEMPO
Global Search Blog regarding the plateau that I see for Google. Earlier this month, I
submitted a piece to Search Engine Watch which included my belief that
there will be a reduction in Google share by Q4. I was wrong. It
actually happened in December 2007. Google is down slightly to 56.3% in December from 57.7% in November.

Ranked by Searches (U.S.)

Provider	Searches (000)	Share of Searches	Searches per Searcher
Google Search	4,062,536	56.3%	37.9
Yahoo! Search	1,273,688	17.7%	22.4
MSN/Windows Live Search	995,899	13.8%	31.7
AOL Search	339,761	4.7%	10.0
Othere.....

Source: Nielsen Online, MegaView Search

Why does this matter? Well, considering that Google is and will remain the
leader in search for the foreseeable future and that search will
continue to grow, it doesn't really affect the numbers in any negative
way, yet. It does, however, provide an opening. One through which we
can see that other options are viable and profitable. As this happens,
more opportunities can fall upon Microsoft and Yahoo!. I believe that the market needs the competition. Even as analysts call (SEW) for Yahoo! to break off search and outsource to Google, I think there is a long term benefit even to Yahoo! shareholders in the dedicated Yahoo! effort to search. With more brand dollars being
considered for search, and the search product itself expanding to
potentially include images and different ways to deliver results, these calls for divesting the core technology are premature.

With continued strength in the display / publisher side and the nascent
nature of search (relative to the potential applications), Yahoo! is
uniquely positioned to package search and display advertising to
optimize the ROI for advertisers. Give up the tech side of search, and
the synergistic opportunities go way.

The vital non-search part of search

2008-01-16T05:02:00.000-06:00

Planning for any marketing campaign is challenging. Most of what we
read about starting the program is focused on keywords, campaigns, urls,
etc. These all should be. But there is a missing element. In today's
dynamic business environment, there is a lot that search marketers need
to coordinate along with the campaign itself.

I have read about launched campaigns being rejected or with an
inflated min bid because the site was down. Or the product page text
was not search engine friendly, or the offers did not match up. So, a
quick review of things to proactively get into.

1) Server Maintenance Schedule. Most maintenance does not
necessarily take down the sites. However, this is the time when the
site is very vulnerable. If something is going to happen, now is the
time.

Why care. Don't launch just before or during these times. The
engines are going to inundate your servers with bot hits to get content
and assess access. Depending on your campaign, this can be significant.
While normally not an issue, if something happens with maintenance,
these hits can complicate it. It also will be a problem for your
campaign's validation and quality score assessment if the server goes
down.

2) Production schedule. This is important in two areas. One, like
server maintenance, this is vulnerable time. But, it is also a time
when hidden problems can happen. Where content or pricing is not what
you thought. This is particularly true with dynamic content or product
sites. In my view, it is best to closely coordinate this effort and
confirm the target page content prior to launching any new campaigns.
With existing campaigns, this is a time to double check the landing
pages.

3) Marketing campaigns. As we move products and services through the
development cycle at an ever increasing pace, the opportunity for the
outbound messaging to fall behind the product offering also increases.
By not waiting for new offers or product information to be given to you
and working your way into the pre-launch discussions, you'll be sure that whatever you're launching is in sync with the products.

4) Site design and development. How many times have you launched a
product only to learn that the landing page is generic, or full of
images and no or little text relevant to the product? Anyway, long
before the launch of any search campaign, you need to involve yourself,
at some level, with site design and development.

5) Analytics, reporting and application development. These are
related to each other and usually are in place well before the process
of creating search campaigns even begins. This is all the more reason
why search people need to be well ingrained in the overall business. It
is too late to raise your hand as you put your campaigns together and
ask for special development, reporting or analytics support. Again,
insert yourself in the long range process involved with these areas.

I have said many time that search marketers need to be more than
just search marketers. They need to be good marketers and involved in
there company's business. Get involved beyond search.

Search is a tactile art.

2007-12-12T04:14:00.000-06:00

At heart, I am a data guy. I run numbers, look at trends, see patterns and set direction based on what this all indicates. This is a great habit when dealing with several hundred campaigns' and oodles of money built up from $1 bids. Taking it all in, running it through database queries and custom routines makes fairly quick work of the tasks (hours vs days). However, this weekend I was reminded (again) that large number crunching projects are not the single answer to search's challenges. You have to get into it. Our campaign managers would probably rather I didn't. But I do. And the truth is, I really enjoy it. It is very 'tactile'. You can almost feel the information as you pour through the campaigns. You get a sense of the relationship between the different campaigns, keywords, kw types, bids, positioning, QS, ad copy and so on. Some of our programs are made up of a dozen campaigns spending hundreds of thousands a month each while others are hundreds of campaigns spending thousands a month each. Both present unique challenges. But to do either kind well, you have to do more than look at reports, change bids and set up bid rules. You have to get dirty. Most SEM folks have done deep dives into their campaigns. But, do yourself a favor, and without any pretext, just start exploring your campaigns. Look for the little things that won't show up in an exception report, or be uncovered in a problem. Search is about nuances; and nuances, by definition are small and frequently unnoticed. But these are the little things that add up to big things. When we talk about the hard work of SEM, this is the kind of thing we really mean.

And I think this is what makes good SEM folks unique. To put together a really good SEM program, you need to have a broad perspective, understand the objectives and the stategies. Not just of search, but for the whole marketing and advertising 'thing'. I frequently find myself in conversations about this with my teammates; we all have ideas about the direction we should go with the products and service we promote. But, then we are just as eager to jump into the gritty part of the SEM job. It is because we have an understanding of the larger effort that we know, almost instinctively, what nuances to leverage.

So, do yourself and your clients a favor. Get dirty.

The right perspective makes all the difference

2007-12-09T05:03:00.000-06:00

This is an easy putt:

I have always promoted the idea that search marketers have to step beyond search to see what is really going in with their company or clients. To really add value, you have to know where you fit in, what obstacles you might face and what you might offer beyond the obvious. Sometimes, even often, the obstacles have nothing to do with the game of search. Take another look at that easy put... from a broader perspective.

Kind of makes you rethink it, doesn't it? If you are only focusing on your narrow area, are there dangers, threats, or perhaps opportunities that you are missing?

Google Organic Ranking Changes...people keep crying

2007-12-02T05:52:00.000-06:00

Why do so many continue to act surprised when Google alters the page rankings? Mark Simon has a perspective that I strongly share... Why does anyone allow their business to depend on the charity of Google's fickle page ranking? He chides both SEO experts and the clients that follow them unquestioningly.

I am not anti-SEO. I just think too much focus is placed on the engines and not enough on good communication. If you know SEO, the rest of this is going to bore you, unless you just feel like slamming my perspective ( I won't mind). For the rest, this is a primer with opinion.

Search engines want the consumers / users to have good experience post click. That is what will keep users coming back to the engine to search other topics. The point is, they want your site to serve the needs of the users. So, you need to focus on the user's needs. This sounds basic, but is too often forgotten.

So to that end, content, well structured and well organized, is paramount. Each page should be focused on a particular area of your business. If you sell bicycles and parts, putting the bikes and parts listed and described on one page dilutes the content. It makes it hard for users to zero in on the information they want. If someone is looking for bike tires, and it is buried somewhere among bikes, brakes, cranks and helmets, how will they find it. As it turns out, search engines aren't any better at figuring it out. In fact they are worse. They figure out what a page is about through the concentration of like clues and their occurrence relative to all other information. This is known as density... usually discussed as keyword density.

The best way to help search engines match your pages with searches is to concentrate on narrow topics that are easily associated with likely keyword searches. Dedicating a page to tires (or even road tires and off-road tires), with appropriate content makes it easier for an engines to match it up to a search for, say... mountain bike tires. A dedicated page might appear 60% about these tires, where a 'junk' page with everything might appear to be less than 10% about it (just as an example). If you had to decide which page was more focused on tires, which one would you pick?

The structure of the content is important too. Well thought out menu and page hierarchy allows the users to navigate to the content easily. It also happens to be a way for the engines to see the connection between the pages of our site and understand the nature of the content. Again, what is good for the user is also good for the engines.

We hear a lot about the tags or coding. These are important, though the importance of some tags seems to ebb and flow. As good form, engines aside, proper code for alt tags, title tags, names, meta, etc should be followed. Some of the tags aid in usability, others make it easier to manage development. There are SEO folks who will tell you it matters a great deal and others will say, not so much. My view is simple. Don't be lazy, follow good form and you'll be ready should Google or Yahoo! switch things up again. Some of these tags are important now, others may become important(again).

Links. Links. Links... The latest change from Google (it is rumored) is intended to defeat some of the paid linking schemes that are used. I don't know that this is so. However, I am not a fan of paid links. If we spend as much time focusing on the needs of the users, developing good content, working on the site / experience and developing good reciprocal linking partnerships that add value to the user experience, we may convert more of the users we get while attracting more links naturally. Oh, and not lose sleep worrying that Google might find us out.

Press releases are important. But, if they serve no other purpose than to try to create links to your site, fire your PR person and find a better use of your money. As with the rest of the SEO tactics, do they serve a broader need and add value to the business? If so, go full steam ahead and, by the way, add a link to your site (preferably to a section related to the release).

You know there is more... there are whole books dedicated to SEO. But, the bottom line in any good SEO program is to focus first and foremost on the user. Only then should you put efforts toward improving your Google page ranking. And, for goodness sake, don't build a business model around SEO.

Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft...All boats rise

2007-11-22T01:51:00.000-06:00

Take a look at the Comscore share data released today and one might say that Yahoo et al are losing ground to Google. As in the past Google has grown share, slightly, to 58.5% while Yahoo! has declined to 22.9% from 23.7%. But this surface veiw is not terribly telling.

comScore Core Search Report* October 2007 Total U.S. – Home/Work/University Locations Source: comScore qSearch 2.0



Core Search Entity	Share of Searches (%)
Core Search Entity	Sep - 07	Oct -07	Point Change Oct-07 vs. Sep-07
Total Core Search	100.0%	100.0%	0.0
Google Sites	57.0%	58.5%	1.5
Yahoo! Sites	23.7%	22.9%	-0.8
Microsoft Sites	10.3%	9.7%	-0.6
Ask Network	4.7%	4.7%	0.0
Time Warner Network	4.3%	4.2%	-0.1

The fact is, search is rising, and all players are growing with it (Fox is an exception).

comScore Expanded Search Query Report October 2007 Total U.S. – Home/Work/University Locations Source: comScore qSearch 2.0



Expanded Search Entity	Search Queries (MM)
Expanded Search Entity	Sep-07	Oct-07	Percent Change Oct-07 vs. Sep-07
Total Expanded Search	13,018	14,457	11.1%
Google Sites	6,593	7,468	13.3%
Google	5,388	6,184	14.8%
YouTube/All Other	1,205	1,284	6.5%
Yahoo! Sites	2,381	2,577	8.2%
Yahoo!	2,346	2,538	8.2%
All Other	35	39	11.4%
Microsoft Sites	999	1,044	4.5%
MSN-Windows Live	966	1,007	4.2%
Microsoft/All Other	33	37	12.1%
Time Warner Network	843	905	7.4%
AOL	397	433	9.1%
Mapquest/All Other	446	472	5.8%
Ask Network	445	493	10.8%
Ask.com	226	277	22.6%
MyWebSearch.com/ All Other	219	216	-1.4%
Fox Interactive Media	492	483	-1.8%
MySpace	483	475	-1.7%
All Other	9	8	-11.1%
eBay	445	472	6.1%
Craigslist.org	197	214	8.6%
Facebook.com	N/A	152	N/A
Amazon Sites	138	146	5.8%

Just thought I'd throw that out there...

Don't listen to what they say...see what they do.

2007-11-21T05:17:00.000-06:00

Gord Hotchkiss wrote an interesting entry today on the decision making process and the short comings of market research. It reminded me of my time in CPG advertising where we delved into market research and tried to reconcile the information with what we saw in the SRI scanner data. Essentially, people were telling us that they were exercising more and eating healthy foods while cutting back on things like soft drinks and potato chips. Yet, according to the scanner data, these unhealthy foods were being consume in growing numbers. In other words, people were saying they were doing the smart thing, but actually doing something else. Gord's piece gets into the why of this and how it applies to search.

But, I think we all have it in our power to address this tendency of consumers to think they do one thing, while actually doing another. With search, we have the ability to track and test ad nauseam. According to the piece, people said they read the listings, but actually only scan the listings. So, what is better, a long sentence (okay, 70 chars isn't long, but can be well formed), or short phrases or individual words that are very targeted? We can test until the cow come home to find out WHAT people do, rather than what they say they do, or we think they do, or our bosses guess they do, or the client supposes they do... ad nauseam.

People say they carefully read all or most of the listings. But, most of the activity (attention and clicks) go to the top. So, does this mean the 6 and lower listings are not valuable? No. Measured on a cost per, you may want a lot of 6 and over position ads rather than one or two 1-3rd position ads. If the bulk of the volume is up top, so is the competition. So, see if the 6+ performs. It may be better. Test.

The point is, while we should continue to read and absorb as much research and information as we can, our ultimate decisions must be based on real world actions, not academic inquiry. Fortunately, for us, search allows us to do this with our own experience, control and data. Take advantage of this. Let articles like Gord's provide the catalyse for new questions, direction and exploration for improvement rather than as quick answers.

Just do good things

2007-11-16T03:14:00.000-06:00

Okay, so this is not really about search. But it is about relationships, business relationships. Seth Godin had a post about concealing things in marketing. It is more consumer focused, but widely applicable. It got me thinking about a problem I have seen repeatedly in nearly 20 years of marketing. Agencies try to spin results, shading numbers and show the good, while hiding the bad. I recall my first experience with a client service director at Leo Burnett in the early 90's who actually did NOT do this.

It was and still is rare to see. But, he said, outright and with expletives (to get his point across) that the brand manager was wrong and the numbers clearly showed the path to be foolish. We could have added several million dollars to the budget simply by agreeing with the brand manager and showing only those numbers that supported the wrong decision. But, the director refused. It was a proud day for our agency, and for me as a member of it. One of the many reasons I like working with Leapfrog is that we always move the metric to sales or revenue. There is no shading here. Client pays X and always gets Y. If it doesn't work, it is clear. Even as our clients ask us to take on more business outside our core programs, we work with them to develop a sales based metric in order to maintain the direct link between our effort and their revenue. There is no tap dancing the results. It works or it doesn't. Both in my professional work and my personal experience, I frequently find myself thinking: "Stop wasting time trying to make me feel good about the things you do. Just do good things."

I wonder how much more productive companies would be if they spend as much time focused on doing good work rather than spinning bad results.

IAC Splits...Ask.com to benefit?

2007-11-07T03:00:00.000-06:00

This week, IAC announced the renewal of their Google paid search relationship for 5 years, worth over $3.5B, as well as the planned split of the company’s 60+ brands over 5 independent public companies(press release): HSN Ticketmaster Interval Lending Tree IAC One of the objectives is to allow each business to focus on its core, grow and achieve a more realistic valuation. Our company advertises with IAC properties across the board. In my group, we work with Ask.com.

Recently, I did a review of search result comparisons for the same searches on Ask, Google, Yahoo and Live. Bottom line, Ask's organic quality was very poor. I hope they focus on improving this aspect of the property. Unfortunately, though Ask is one of the premier IAC properties, there are still many properties competing for resources. I just hope the Google relationship is not a crutch and that they push for improved organic quality the same way they have pushed for developing user interface (3D) and off-line marketing.

Gord Hotchkiss put it much better than I can. But the bottom line is, they results have to be a higher quality.

Hiring for Search Engine Marketing

2007-10-10T13:55:00.000-05:00

Our company has experience phenomenal growth over the past few years. We seem to be in a perpetual state of hiring. I am not complaining; the constant state of change, new ideas and challenges is what keeps me going. Being too steady would drive me nuts, boring me out of my mind.

So, all this change brings on a number of questions about SEM. One of the most frequently faced from clients and prospective employees is “what makes a good search marketer?” Given that the search group is one of the areas I oversee, this question is constantly on my mind. And, I have come to several conclusions.

First, SEM is the kind of marketing most marketing majors coming out of college want to do. It is extremely tangible. Your results are virtually immediate. You have nearly ultimate control. And, if your ideas pan out, you can prove it. Unfortunately, if you do not get into search early out of school(or direct marketing off-line), the tangibility of marketing is quickly lost. Running traditional advertising and marketing programs keeps us a couple of step removed from the ultimate goal: the Sale. It is not that these are ineffective tactics. It is that their impact is cumulative and the view to any one tactic’s effect is very hard to determine. So, keeping the initial marketing desire is key to SEM.

Second, I believe good marketers are naturally curious people. They want to know… everything. If a question comes up that is technically beyond their scope, they find a way to answer it. The boundaries of a position are irrelevant. Natural curiosity drives them to figure it out. Good SEM is driven by good marketing. And good marketing is driven by curiosity.

So, where does SEM expertise come into play? Obviously, we need this. We must understand cause and affect within search. But, if you hire people who fulfill the first and second points, teaching them search marketing ins and outs is easy; much easier than teaching curiosity.

2007-09-25T17:22:00.000-05:00

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

2007-09-25T17:02:00.000-05:00

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.

2007-09-24T01:41:00.000-05:00

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.

Microsoft releases search research that says....

2007-08-22T03:59:00.000-05:00

ADOTA: " Study Says Stop Sinking $$$ Into Search"

Ah crap, here we go again…
Okay, breathe.

First, if this is the way Microsoft manages the release of search information, no wonder they are a trailing third in the space. It is not that I think these numbers should be hidden, but they need more context. There are a few qualitative points to be made, then we can hit on the quantitative.

First,
“Most of the clicks to a web site came from users who had already visited”

Good. It shows a level awareness. However it does not indicate the propensity to go to the site to make a purchase at the time of intent. I can’t tell you how many times I have had clients insist that they do not need any directional advertising because “consumers already know who we are.” Yet, when we placed a bigger ad in the yellow pages, or improved their placement in search, or bought a listing in IYPs, they suddenly had a boon in “awareness”.

So,lets say you're...Microsoft. For the Office 2007 product, they have a dedicated URL that brings you to the sub-page on Microsoft.com… good move.

So, for a non-branded query for word processor, you can get this paid search ad.
[----image no longer available----]

If you have “Microsoft” in front of the query, you get the same url, with greater relevancy. Different ad. If the SEM knows what they are doing, the messages are targeted to the search query.

But, what if you type in “Microsoft”? You get the same ad.

But you also get organic listings just below this. Now, taking this article to heart, one would counsel Microsoft to stop bidding on the term “Microsoft”. However, on closer inspection, the SERPs are confusing relative to the Office 2007 product. The organic link is not sales focused and the ability to convert a search is diminished.

This whole argument goes back to a post I did months back about branded keywords. Controlling the user experience greatly increases your chances of a conversion. Simply giving up branded keyword control to organic results is a sure fire way to get the very least benefit possible from search. You can quickly take conversion from the 60% percent of visits and flush it down the drain.

Add to that one question: If 60% of the visits were driven by branded keywords and 40% by others, what do you think the 60% will do if they don’t see your name during the search? Yes, some will simply type the url into the browser. Others will very likely conduct another, broader search and pick up more of your competitors (or just click on one of the competitors in the original search who bought your term). Not being there is foolish.

Reporting like ADOTA’s on studies like these is far too shortsighted.

Like all advertising, we should look for the synergies. Two studies were released recently that speak to this. Our analytics group does regression analysis to be able to attribute the relative influence of online and off line activity. I will never be one to discount the value of the Brand. However, using the Brand as a crutch, and fall back to no search support, is ill-advised. Studies like these need to be reported with more insight and objective analysis. Sure, “Study Says Stop Sinking $$$ Into Search” is a great headline, but it is inaccurate and, frankly irresponsible.

Google, one more step removed from what it was.

2007-08-10T05:35:00.000-05:00

To gain a top spot at Google (above the search results), you had to have a minimum quality score. Then, if your bid was high enough, you could be eligible for a top spot. While occasionally frustrating, it stuck to the core Google principle that Quality was the driver.

A Change, mentioned in more detail below, now moves the metric for being in the top spot to a minimum ranking derived from a max bid. The shift is essentially this:

Your rank was derived from your bid and quality score. Your actual CPC was based on the amount you would have to pay to keep your rank just above the next lowest ranked ad. So, as long as your rank is above the next ad down, your actual cost could be less. If you are the top ranked ad, you can bid even more, but your actual CPC should not increase unless another advertiser increases the bid or quality if their ad, thereby causing your ad CPC to go up. If they go high enough, they pass you in the ranking, and your CPC is driven by the next lowest ranked ad.
[---- image no longer available-------]

In the example (demonstration only, not actual criteria), even though you bid $2.50, your actual cost is only $1.73, the amount needed to keep your rank just above the 2nd ranked ad. The actual CPC is even less than the next three advertisers.

Now, that is changing for the top spots. While you will never pay more than your max bid, Google is positioning the CPC calculation to charge you (potentially) significantly more, while justifying it by moving you from the first ad on the right side to the first ad, but on top.

They have a minimum CPC amount to make this happen, but it must be tied to a ranking score. So, now instead of insisting that an ad quality improve before moving to the top, Google is saying just stay where you are. They’ll set a minimum rank and if your ad can achieve that rank at a CPC rate somewhere less than your max bid, they’ll move you and charge you the CPC for a top spot.

[-----------image no longer available---------]

So, in the example, instead of paying $1.73 CPC, they’ll use your quality score, divide it into the minimum ranking (1.75 in this example), and calculate the needed CPC to achieve the ranking. If it is less than your bid, your CPC moves from $1.73 to $2.30 (in this example) and you get moved from the right side to the top of the page.

So, the take away, watch your effective CPC. We do not know the true ranking, or min CPC to achieve the top spot. For some folks this may well be worth the premium to move from top right to top page. For others, you’ll need to adjust bids and work on quality (a never ending challenge anyway).

I suspect that there were two drivers to this: 1) Advertisers’ frustration at not being able to move, and 2) a revenue enhancement opportunity. It is just somewhat disappointing that Google, though stating that it has to be a high quality ad, is compromising on this principle and allowing us to buy our way to the top. That’s capitalism, I guess.

Thanks Tim & Jen for showing this to me...

Search marketing, display ads, brands...and our future

2007-08-09T05:17:00.000-05:00

I know this is old news. I’ve said it, many others have said it also. Search and display advertising work together. Search is more than just directional. It is also brand… myopically the purview of display. But it is more than just having a search campaign, and a display campaign. It is important to keep these two coordinated to ensure optimum results.

Recently, two studies were released that lends credence to the interaction of search with the brand(Enqurio), and search and display (Yahoo! / ComScore) in a synergistic lift in results. First, the Yahoo!/ ComScore study on display and search together.

What I find interesting in this study is the disparity between online metrics (lift in pages views) and off-line metrics, lift in sales ($ per purchase or incremental sales).

	Search & Display	Search	Display
Lift in In-Store Purchasers	43%	26%	6%
Lift in Pages Viewed	68%	46%	37%
Lift in $ Per Purchaser: In-Store	83%	26%	11%
Lift in Incremental In-Store Dollars	90%	43%	15%

Display and search collectively did not demonstrate synergistic impact on page views. A 46% lift from search and 37% lift in display, collectively a 68% lift. There is a redundancy in the lift. In other words, some of the page views you received would have come with either search or display alone. Unfortunately, most online marketing analysis stops at this level.

Now take a look at incremental in-store sales; whether measure in $ / purchase, or total dollars spent, there is a synergistic lift. In other words, a lift beyond simply the lift percentage of the two ad types summed. In-store total dollars lift was 43% for search and 15% percent for display when run independently. If these two were simply complementary, we would expect a total dollars spent lift of 58% when run together, (adding the two together). If they were only partially complimentary (some redundancy, as in page views), then we would expect something less than 58%.

But, that is not what happens. In the case of search + display, 43% + 15% = a 90% lift in incremental in-store dollars. This is a classic case of the value of the whole being greater than the sum of it’s parts. The other off-line metrics show similar, though not as strong, synergy between the two.

So, there are two conclusions here:
1) Where ever possible, measure every effort / campaign all the way to the sale. Stopping short (like page views) does not tell the real story. In this case it short-changed the program, in others, it may exaggerate it’s impact. Get to the sale.
2) As I have said, search and display work together. SEMs need to learn, understand and partner with display advertising / marketers to optimize the programs.

To provide some sense of why these two things may work together, I turned to the second study. It was done by Enqurio this past July. Simply put, brands appearing in organic and paid listings earned a considerable lift in Brand awareness. The results for branded and non branded terms directionally were the same. I’ll just briefly hit on the non-branded.

“Fuel Efficient Cars” top organic and top paid listing combined helped Honda achieve a 16% lift in un-aided brand awareness (Roughly 50% up to 66%). One would think that Honda should be at the top of everyone’s list in this category, yet they had exceptional improvement with organic and paid top spots in search. Now, before you go and get discouraged thinking you have to get top in both, either one (paid or organic) on it’s own demonstrated very good lift, with paid doing marginally better.

I always say bring it to the sale, or as close as you can. Brand recognition is great, but almost meaningless if it does not encourage purchase. The study showed an 8% lift in intent to purchase with top spot in both organic and paid. This study had to stop at intent, but it is closer, and demonstrates the benefit of search on the brand and sales.

Both studies show that search marketers need to expand. Drop the blinders, embrace search not only for its direct marketing prowess, but also it’s brand building ability. Recognize, learn and leverage the synergy between search and display. Our world has changed, you need to stay ahead of the curve to maintain the value to your company or clients.

AOL / Tocoda…Great. BT enhanced service…Great. Account Service structure… not so great.

2007-07-25T05:12:00.000-05:00

I truly appreciate the road AOL and others are trying to travel. As I wrote before, search never has been a stand alone, and we are quickly approaching the time when folks will no longer be able to pretend otherwise. As AOL and others seek to enhance their properties through technological integrations such as Tacoda’s BT network, or Revenue Sciences remarketing abilities, they have an even bigger hurdle to meet: Getting their account service teams well versed in the different verticals, and more importantly, how they work together (I dislike even using the term ‘vertical’… gives credence to the idea that these are separate when they are not.)

While the media properties are spending a great deal of time creating these opportunities, and heavily promoting them in the press, they are simultaneously allowing their account services team to remain woefully ignorant. I can tell you, I hear the frustration in their voices when they have to admit that I know as much or more about these things as they do. So, here is my suggestion to the ‘powers that be’ in the AOL’s of the world: Stop treating account / client service teams as conduits and start treating them as consultants, giving them the corresponding education to back it up.

I can not tell how much money they have lost because they forced the CS teams into situations where they are simply meeting makers trying to connect our team with someone, somewhere who knows something about the 10% of their media that happens to be the subject of our interest. Compound that with the fact that, no matter how closely related another ‘product’ may be, should you bring it up, they have to say that you need to speak to someone else (and then they have a conversation between themselves as to who that person might be). I think this is a tremendous waste of talent.

I’m not here to help the media properties make more money. But, if they do, then that means my team found a great opportunity for our business. The bottom line is, as long as the media continue to silo these opportunities, we, the advertisers, lose money (or make less money, however you want to view it).

Ostriches beware, being an expert in search is no longer enough.

2007-07-13T05:27:00.000-05:00

You know there has always been a connection between search and display advertising results. However, if you talk to the AOL rep, they only know one medium. Ditto with Yahoo!. Throw Ask in there as well. They all have vast display ad opportunities, decent search products (AOL launched Search Market Place – a white label of Ad Words), yet despite much research, including some of their own to support integration, they silo the respective media categories.

Finally, Yahoo is brining them under one roof. Their announcement a couple of weeks ago is a welcome step. In time, our service team will have better access to the display side of the house. Currently, we deal with different people to buy display and search. There is no connection in the programs internally. This presents a strong disconnect on the side of Yahoo! with our programs. But, this should iron itself out with the new structure.

There is a huge benefit in the self-service search tools, backed by support of the account service team. In addition to a better coordinated program through integrated account teams, I have no doubt that they will adapt the same tool set for managing display programs. This is just one indication that the major players are taking search and display integration seriously.

Some would point to Google as an example of tools already integrated. However, this is only part of the equation. What gives the others a leg up is the control of and ability to integrate the display and search programs at a strategic level as well as a tactical or tool based level. Google is fine if you just want to throw display ads out to a network, or target some particular sites. But, in their model, no one at Google is an expert in the content sites themselves.

AOL, Yahoo, MSN and (if they care to exploit it) Ask all have the expertise in the content development, user experience and user tracking that can be leveraged in the integration of search and display advertising. A couple of months ago, I mentioned AOL’s search back. This product allows you to target those who searched on a particular keyword (custom), or category of keywords (standard) even if they did not click on your ad. Yahoo has a beta that they closed for further modification that can do very similar targeting. This is the most obvious application of integrated search and display advertising.

Beyond this, they can see the surfing habits of users tracked backwards from specific events, like a particular search. In this, they can develop targeted display based on likelihood to conduct particular category searches. In a longer purchase process, they can target display ads to areas where users tend to go post search on category terms. With the proper modeling, they can utilize their content display programs to target those who were likely to have done a category search on someone else’s search engine.

The bottom line, search and display integration are finally getting a serious look from some of the major companies that have and control both. As search marketers, we need to expand and become familiar with both as well. For years, we have behaved as if search is it’s own little island, acknowledging external impacts, but never really planning with them. That world is over. To continue to be cutting edge search marketers, we now have to understand and be able to work with the display side in a strategic way, if not actually become the display side.

SES Latino - Miami. Search Marketing to Latin America and US Hispanics

2007-06-19T05:31:00.000-05:00

It was Sunday, Father’s Day. I woke up in my comfortable home, my kids and wife treated me to breakfast in bed (a tradition in our house). And then I did what I needed to do, but did not want to. At twelve noon, I left for the airport (I gave myself the bad dad award.). It was painful to leave the house where I am spoiled by my family.

But, I had to get to Miami to make it to the SES Latino Conference which started early Monday morning. The flight started out easy enough. We left on time and appeared to be moving at a good clip. Then the captain came on… we were diverted, but are now on our way back to Miami.

When we landed I said, “Not too late.”

Stupid… never say anything like that while your still on the plane.

Weather messed things up pretty badly. We sat just off the gates for about 2 hours. Things did not go so smoothly.

I arrive at the hotel late. Ordered some late night room service, popped open the computer and started to review emails, work on some database stuff and review some blogs. Eventually, I went to sleep.

When I woke up a few hours later the next morning, I looked out my window. Visible from my room, there were 11 skyscrapers under construction. The steel and concrete all looked virtually the same. Sure, there were some slight differences in shape to accommodate the façade or esthetics, but they were essentially similar. Once they are complete, I am sure they will be very distinct from each other. But, at their hearts, they all follow the same rules of architecture.

Well, as I was sitting in the sessions today, I realized that my trip here was very analogous to the road we travel when advertising to the Latino market place.

We know we have a comfortable market that treats us well and stepping away from it (leaving others to tend it), is hard. But, we’re going to do it because it is necessary.

We then start kidding ourselves into thinking maybe it’s not so difficult. Just take what I do, changed the language and I’m golden.

Then, the SNAFU fears come on. We don’t get the clicks, we don’t get the conversions, or worse, we forgot to have someone check the literal meaning in the native language of our product and blame that for our woes. We’ve all heard various versions of the same theme, a car named “Nova” (by the way, this one was an urban legend). Anyway, there are going to be some bumps. We may end up with different routes, getting there later or finding something we did not expect.

But, lest we forget, most of us went through bumps when launching in our own country or our own language. We were just less frightened by it because we could understand, and therefore adjust to the reasons. It is marketing 101. Learn and adapt to the markets.

This leads to the buildings I saws. At its core, marketing is marketing. All the strategies that were discussed were core and classic marketing. Just like every building has to follow similar architectural rules around the laws of physics, all marketing has to follow the same basic rules around the laws of communication. Then, when we get into market, the individual locale dictates the target action, words and esthetics of our campaigns, but core marketing practices don’t change.

There will be others covering the details of the presentations. The bottom line is that good search marketing is good search marketing anywhere in the world. The same core practices you use to create programs in English in the States need to set the framework for any other programs you run. .

Just for fun, I am going to poke at Gord Hotchkiss. Last week he went off on his fellow Canadians. The essential message: The Canadian people are online in droves and well adept at using search. Why aren’t the marketers well adept at search marketing?

Well, it appears the Latin American marketers have set the groundwork for developing well managed SEM. While content is still lacking, there is a VERY firm grasp of ROI measurement; SEM practices and the proper development of well structured content. I was hearing things from Latin American search marketers that I did not hear from many American SEMs until just this past year. The Latin American market is going to grow phenomenally and the marketers are well positioned to leverage that growth with well thought out metrics and measurement practices.

Yahoo!'s Terry Semel steps back, Susan and Jerry Step up

2007-06-19T01:09:00.000-05:00

Today I am at the SES Latino Conference in Miami, FL (more on that later). During some of the sessions, the various representatives from Yahoo! spoke about the ‘innovation’ of Panama. I can overlook the fact that this is a conference on Latino marketing and the Yahoo contribution’s were predominantly about Yahoo Panama (at least it’s name is that of a Central American country), but I just heard similar ‘pitches’ at the SMX conference in Seattle a couple of weeks ago (am I allowed to mention SES and SMX in the same breath?!?) . Normally I don’t mind a company pitching its products. But, Yahoo!’s insistence on using adjectives like ‘innovative’ to describe Panama while Google is sitting on the stage with them is embarrassing.

So, along with all the financials and shareholder discontent that have come out lately, it is no surprise that Terry is stepping back and allowing Susan Decker and Jerry Yang to step up as President and CEO respectively. Press release.

Since the release of Panama I have held my words about Yahoo!’s aggrandizement of a product that merely mimics what has been in market for years. When Avenue A issued several verdicts, I simply cautioned that it was too soon to really tell what the impact will be, and it will be primarily up top the SEMs to decide. I then heard Terry Semel talk about the great improvements of Panama during the shareholder calls and I was further questioning their perspective. It is not that Panama is bad. It isn’t. It is a great improvement over the old Yahoo! / Overture system. However, it is now and only just now, catching up to the market.

I am not sure how a company can become a leader in the space when it believes it is ‘innovative’ with a product that is comparable to technology that has been in place for years. If Yahoo! wants to impress shareholders, then it must either develop something that advertisers OR users think is above Google’s offerings, or just plug away at search to keep up and find an area where it truly has a competitive advantage.

If I were even more arrogant than I am, I’d pretend to know what the competitive advantage is. Yahoo! has great properties, terrific traffic and really smart people. I hope the new leadership finds the magic that has eluded Terry, and the rest of us.

Creative Testing – a full time affair

2007-06-15T06:43:00.000-05:00

Okay, we looked at setting up the campaign, ad group, keywords, as well as the metrics, tracking and reporting. One of the often over looked opportunities with Google and now with Yahoo Panama is the ability to test creative. However, it is not just a matter of putting out a bunch of copy executions and seeing what happens with the CTR. You need to think these things out in advanced and develop a process or system to test these affectively relative to your ultimate online goals.

Whats this about
Before I go further, I want to be clear. This is not “how to write good copy.” This posting is about how to set your program up to find the optimal keyword, copy and experience combination. Too often, I hear about copy in terms of what drives the best CTR. When, in fact there are instances where you want users to self select out and effectively lower your CTR. Why? Because this is about the ROI…what happens post click. Getting to the best copy in terms of ROI / ROAS is what this post is about.

Identify the Consumers' Drivers and Your Control
As mentioned in previous post, associating subject matter / words in the ad copy with the landing page is very important to improving the quality score thereby lowering your CPC and improving your position. However, there is a lot more to it than that. If the whole theory of the quality score plays out, then a higher quality score should also improve your conversions. Whether this is true or not can only be tested by you (I have seen and read of many situations where the quality score was low, but conversions were high).

To assess your ability to manage quality score along with optimizing conversions, begin by identifying those things related to your site over which you have control. Ask:

1)   Can you drive to any page you want and still have the tracking you need?
2)   Can you control the content of any particular page?
3)   Can you add pages?
4)   Can you control offers or pricing?

Then ask about what drives the desired action. What are users looking for that will drive the actions you want (buying, requesting more info, signing up for newsletters, etc)?
1)   price
2)   selection / availability
3)   easy of process
4)   quality
5)   actionable information
6)   brands
7)   attributes
8)   Other?

You probably know what people talk about regarding your product or service and this is a good starting point. However, if you have not already tested other messaging subjects, don’t rule them out right off the bat. In other words, challenge what you “know.”

Okay, now the interesting part. Take a look at the list of what drives consumers and take a look at your site. This is where your level of control comes in. Worst case scenario is where you know that nothing on your site speaks directly to the consumers’ drivers and you can’t change that. Usually, it is slightly better than that. You have some sub-pages that have relevant subject matter, but over which you have no direct control. If you’re one of the fortunate few, you have actual content control. Where ever you are on the spectrum, be sure you understand it. It is important when mapping out the next steps.

Where to send the users
So, we’ve covered a fair bit, and I have not written one word about actual ad copy. Before you start writing ad copy, you must have a clear picture of your users’ drivers and your own control. You want to ensure that the users’ expectations pre-click match their experience post click. To do this, map out the drivers of behavior to the most appropriate place on your site.

If the productSelection.html page is the only one to which you can drive traffic, this may be good for some things but poor for others. This is where your control level comes in.

What you want to do is be able to have specific pages developed, either dynamically based on parameters, or with static HTML that you have the option to change quickly. So your matrix can look something like this:

In this scenario, the price driven users land on pages with well targeted subject matter geared toward promotions, rebates / price, quality, and others attributes. Its obvious; if there is a key driver that gets them to click on the ad, then why take them to a page that has nothing to do with it? Drive them to a well targeted page.

Once you’ve done this, ask yourself yet another question: “does the section of the site your users end up on really speak to the issue / subject you believe drives their behavior?” The answer ought to be yes. If not, can you exercise some control? For instance, with pricing driven shoppers, some may be moved by straight sales, others may be moved by “package” deals. So between, “25% off the pants”, or “buy these pants and get 50% of selected shirts,” which drives more revenue per ad dollar?

Copy Content Sources
Now, you have your “drivers,” your target pages and your tracking (or you will.) I don’t know what the desired event is for your site, so obviously I can’t give actual copy. But, what I can do is help you wrap some structure around your ad copy practices. For the copy itself, look to several sources:

1)    The competition. Not to mimic them, but to see about points of differentiation. There may not be any (hard to tell a boss that, so come up with something), but it is good to stay aware.
2)    The web site itself. What is on the page? Look at logs…what text or images drove clicks to your target page from within the site?
3)    Off-line, POP, direct mail, print ads, etc. for you and the competition.
4)    Marketing and advertising research / customer feedback.

You get the idea…you’re not isolated. There are many sources of information related to copy development. Now for each of the drivers, develop at least a few copy options.

Setting up Your Test Matrix
Then create a matrix that will allow you to start tracking results.

The above matrix is very basic. For each driver, you may have multiple test landing pages, or you may send the same driver to multiple landing pages, or have different metrics. Keep in mind that the value may be realized from an immediate sale, or from a sign up for a newsletter leading to a later sale. If your site has both, then the metrics are different for each. The point is, look at this as a starting point and mold it to your own situation.

Beyond that you should take this down to the keyword level. This is where the nuances play out that can lead to the epiphanies. You may find that the same drivers create great sales for one keyword and not well for another in the same ad copy / landing page combination. The poor performing keyword may however do well with different ad copy going to the same page, or same ad copy to a different page or…. The list can goes on. That is why you need the matrix and keyword level tracking.

Keep Testing
For the copy itself, keep testing. Consumers change, seasonality can move things on you, competitors may influence the market behavior. Always be willing to test what you think you know. Assume things have changed.

Privacy International Fumbles…Badly.

2007-06-11T15:19:00.000-05:00

When I saw the article this morning in the paper, I had an initial reaction based on the fact that the article did little to help the user understand the issue. It merely reported that Google was the worst. I have since reviewed the study itself, and now understand why the article was so poor. The report itself was hardly an objective view of the complex issues surrounding internet privacy. In fact, I stated in my initial reaction that the problem with the media is that it does a generally poor job of helping people understand the issue and clarify it. So, you can imagine my chagrin when I read the following in the report itself.

The report was compiled using data derived from public sources (newspaper articles, blog entries, submissions to government inquiries, privacy policies etc), information provided by present and former company staff, technical analysis and interviews with company representatives.

The first source of information is ‘newspapers.’ Those of us in the industry are well aware of the inadequacies of the general media when reporting on internet issues. This is hardly a reliable source.

Then there is the ‘governmental inquires’. Sighting:

Generally poor track record of responding to customer complaints. Ambivalent attitude to privacy challenges (for example, complaints to EU privacy regulators over Gmail).

Nothing in the summary or the “detail” of the report addresses relative size or normalization of data, or anything objective at all. It all appears too anecdotal, with no real data point such as % of users, or number of complaints. I am sorry, but having been involved in market research for nearly 20 years, I’d be hard pressed to assess any performance level on “Generally” anything.

Okay, the studies “Assessment” process:

Where possible we present data on specific privacy practices. It was not always possible to precisely assess a company's approach in each category. As a result, we erred on the side of caution and gave the company the benefit of the doubt and assessed it only for what we could actually identify.

From a methodological perspective, this is absurd. Given that the source of the “data” for this study comes from public sources, this methodology overlooks two big issues. 1) By their very nature, larger or fast growing companies generate a disproportionate amount of ‘public’ information and 2) there tends to be a ‘pile on’ mentality regarding general media as well as blogs and other public sources of information. If you combine the methodology with the data source, you can reasonably expect stagnant companies to rate very highly on this scale.

When I got down to the “Why Google got the worst rating” section, I read that corporate “Ethos” was a factor. Ethos? This is hardly an objective measurement. Google stood up to the government to protect user data (and won) while others caved. You may knock Google on many accounts, but on Ethos? Google is pervasive, and I guard against opening up too much to them. However, I am glad to see that what I do share is defended by Google when they have it.

The privacy issue is real. Unfortunately Privacy International’s approach leaves too many gaps. It lacks objective data, uses openly subjective metrics and lacks a sound methodology. If this is the approach our industry takes on privacy, then the issue itself will not receive the proper scrutiny, the users will remain woefully ignorant and we will find ourselves victims of real privacy abuse.

While I fault PI for publishing this, I place equal fault on the media like Associate Press where I first picked up the story in my local paper. If there had been a proper review of the study, it either would not have made it into the press, or the article would have provided an object view. Our press used to challenge information. Now, unfortunately, it just passes it through.

Matt Cutt’s perspective
Danny Sullivan’s dissection.

Watchdog group gives Google an F for policies - AP news

2007-06-10T21:02:00.000-05:00

It’s Sunday morning and I am on my deck enjoying coffee and reading the Sunday paper. Yes, the printed kind with ink left on my fingers and pages being inconveniently blown in the wind. This is my respite from online "stuff."

But, as we all know these retreats don't last long. My local paper picked up the Associated Press story (“Watchdog group gives Google an F for policies”) on how Google was given a failing grade by the London based Privacy International for its policies on personal information. As I spent a good part of last week at SMX Seattle and discussed this issue, as well as wrote a piece on it, I was compelled to drop the paper, pick up my handheld p.c. and jot down some thoughts.

First among my thoughts on this issue is that the article does nothing to help the reader understand it. From a layman perspective one might think that Google knows everything about you and you are at risk of being terribly exposed to the world. While Google does collect and save search history they can only tie it to you if you let them or there is a considerable effort involving far more than Google. The general media has to do a better job of laying out the issue.

Second, and related to the first, Google's programs involving pii are opt-in. If you use Google, you know what you give them, you have access to their policies and, hopefully you can make decisions. If you are not comfortable then don't give away any information about yourself.

Third, despite the market consolidators like Google, one of the neat things about the internet is the ease of executing choices. Unlike the OS debate where switching was too difficult for the vast majority and Microsoft had / has a virtual lock on the desktop, the URL could ultimately be thought of as the "User's Real-time Liberator." We have choice.

Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of the potential for abuse. As Google expands its reach with acquisitions the potential increases for one company to gain access to all the pieces of our information and put them together. Permissions granted to an entity separately may be innocuous. But, when combined with that of another, can become very invasive. As consumers, we have to be vigilant about who we deal with and what we share. Perhaps I am too "American" but I do put a fair amount of responsibility on individuals to be aware of the companies to whom they give information.

Later that day... I had a chance to review the the study. PI did a poor job.

SMX Seattle Search Marketing Conference.

2007-06-06T02:52:00.000-05:00

The past two days have been spent juggling the SMX Advanced Search conference, putting out campaign fires (2000 miles from home, and we can still do our job…the internet is great), phone calls and email via hand held. I will say that this event has been, on the whole, attended by truly more advanced search marketers. I tried to bounce between the paid and SEO tracks, so likely missed some good stuff on both sides. That said, here are some observations:

Q & A with Matt Cutts
I will say that this is the first open discussion where I found myself having to process the discussion. Normally, the dialogue simply triggers memories of past sessions with little or no new information. While the topics this time were similar, the direction was a bit different and deeper.

I was reminded of how mainstream Google has become for advertisers. There was a question related to the detailed implications of Google's notoriously vague guidelines from Patrick at feedthebot.com. Matt explained that there is a number theory in mathematics around the idea that if you can satisfy / explain four questions then you can derive virtually all answers to subsequence questions. Therefore, web masters could answer their own questions based on what Google does provide. Now, there is recognition that explicit answers are needed for the new breed of online marketers who are good at marketing, but not necessarily mathematics (you can tell by the way I butchered the premise on the number theory that I definitely fall into the ‘Marketing’ group).

Personalization
Personalization discussions brought some healthy banter between the MSN, Yahoo! and Google. However, the bottom line, and common theme: develop good content and relevant linking partnerships. What defines good content has expanded with universal search (though I think this may not be necessarily true for all SEO. I mean expanded…some are already there), but the base concept continues to be sound. I am often flustered by the comments that suggest the world has changed dramatically as a result of either personalization or universal search.

BTW…“&pws=0” at the end of the search URL in Google removes personalized search results for the particular query, leaving the general results that most people would see. So, if you’re in your Google account you don't need to log out.

Is Bid Management dead?
This discussion was formed as a debate. 2 people argued that is not dead, and 2 that it was not. The upshot, it is not dead. Both teams agreed that it is still used at some level. By definition, if it is playing a useful role, it is not dead. It has however evolved from its central point of SEM to a tool in a much broader effort.

Paid search
I did, to my chagrin, hear an audience member try to get one of the panelists on the paid search track to tell her if it was worth it for her bid to first position. No matter how he tried to get her to focus on ROI, She kept saying, "if I have budget left at the end of the month...". I was glad to hear him, and others, be so heavily focused on the post dick metrics. While a few people were stuck on the CPC / position metric most were well beyond that. I heavily advocate for ROI metrics, going so far as to suggest SEMs abandon budgets altogether.

The fact that so many were well beyond the standard, and some much more advanced, may present Danny with an issue for the paid side of SMX advanced. The engines didn't have the answers to many of the questions that were being asked. Either they don't know, or they won't say (I imagine for competitive reasons). At times it even went so far as attendees knowing more about how the engines worked than the representatives. Both on the floor and in the presenterions, the engines are going to need better informed representatives or just say up front, "we won't share that."

SEO
During one ask the expert session I was pleased to see that most of the panel members advocated the position that good results ultimately stemmed from hard work. We all face the same issues (on paid and SEO) most of which revolved around too much work, too little time. Thus, questions were around the theme of more efficiently gaining links. Overall, Good content, hard work will get results. Don't short cut it.

Bottom line
Well worth attending. However, the presenters and floor / expo participant will need to push themselves. The reality is that all the stuff we talked about these past two days will not be “advanced” for long. If the same information is regurgitated at the next advanced session, the value will be lost.

Google’s reach, information collection and use. Do you know how far it goes?

2007-06-01T05:43:00.000-05:00

I have read, heard and seen a great deal regarding Google getting too deep into our information. Often, the article or discussion is focused on a single issue at a time. Today, it happens to be the FTC review of the Google / Double Click acquisition for privacy. But, if you take a look at the tendrils of the Google Machine, and see all the places it touches and wants to touch, even the most open minded would shudder at the potential (and it is just that, potential) abuse.

From ads, to website, to web surfers, Google has its hands in all of it. Consider:

1) Personalized search. By definition, personalized search requires the tracking and recording of individual actions. They know what sites you’re on (if you let them, and many do), what you do on those sites, time spent, when you’re there. They know what you search for, what interests you have and the connections based on search patterns. All the while, the complex algorithms are building a profile of you based on all this information.

2) Analytics. I am often surprised how so many web publishers do not ask, “Why is Google providing such robust analytics for free?” They are collecting a lot of data. What kind of sites are people on and what they are doing there even if the individuals do not give explicit permission; the site did. Google can see what people who searched on a keyword did on a given site, what other sites they came from, and even to what site they go. Pull this data together, and you can have yet another basis for profiling. Combine it with #1, and…wow, you can really build user profiles.
Not to mention, Google gets to build extensive business profiles. They can see conversion rates buy product category, referring site, keyword, based on page content, site flow and, oh, user profile.
3) CPA ad model. This is a good model. You don’t pay Google until the user buys from you or take some other defined action. But, that is not all. To participate, you must put Google code on your pages. Google sees who converted form each keyword. But, because Google can view your site as well as all other sites, they can see what leads to conversions in a given industry. And, again, combine it with user profile.

4) Double Click…estimate 80% of ad delivery, users tracked. Take a look at the DART suite of tools. A lot of information is being captured.

5) Google Mobile. Where are you? What are you looking up? With GPS enable phones, you are tagged when you do a search, or access information.

6) Google Check out. On top of all that, they know how much you spend and on what.

7) Gmail – Google scans the content in order to determine what ad to deliver.

8) Google Docs. When do you start working; when do you stop; what type of documents do you use. From where do you access your documents. What is in your documents (yes, the get to look).

9) Google Maps: What are you looking up? Where are you going? What kinds of businesses do you frequent? Through your use of Maps, Google can gain insight into your off-line activities.

10) Google Adsense: Google’s ad delivery code spread across the net. Google sees when these ads (and therefore sites) get delivered, know the content of the site, and can see click through behavior.

Okay, so this is based on a few minutes of thought. There are more touch points, but I am not going to do an exhaustive list. Beyond that, if you read the privacy policy, you know Google will blend your information with third party data to add to its profile of you. While they will not share your PII, they will take information from outside and add it to their information.

Much of the discussion on privacy revolves around personal privacy. We, as Americans usually rail against this kind of overt data collection. However, we seem to have resigned ourselves to the reality of the ‘system.’ And, it can be beneficial. We can save time not weeding through bad search results, ads in email may actually be useful and websites might use this information to improve their web experiences.

But, from a business side, how much information do you really want to provide to any third party? If you take up Google on its offers, you will be giving them more insight into your customers and business than you will ever truly realize. Unfortunately while you are giving Google all this information, and they are marrying it with many other sources, it is difficult to see how much you are getting back in return; especially since your return is being calculated by Google.

Some, don’t see an issue, saying, “Google advertising is a market based program. We bid on the costs, so there is nothing there to negotiate. The market sets the price.” Actually, no, Google is no longer a market based system. The program allows you to bid as high as you like, but the floors, or minimums are set by Google. The minimum bids are not market-based, they are set by parameters established by Google.

Consider this: With all the information gathering technologies at its disposal, Google can know:
1) How much advertisers are paying for ads across a vast number of websites.
2) Inventory availability
3) What the customer conversation rates are for the sources in a vertical
4) Actual sales value
5) All the different sources of traffic for your particular site
6) The conversion rate for all those sources to your site

So, ask yourself, how much negotiation leverage do you have? Do you know how much real ad inventory is on the market? Do you know the value of that inventory to all the other advertisers? Do you know what the best negotiated CPM is? Through its analytics, CPA, adsense, adwords, Double Click / Performics connections, Google does, or can.

And, above all, if you have Google’s code resident on your site, Google also knows the value of all these things for you. How do you improve your ROI when the supplier on the other side knows the lowest and highest price you’ve paid on other properties, the conversion values and what the maximum you can pay and still make money? They hold all the cards. If ‘do no evil’ ever slips from the equation, Google can set it so they make (even) more money while you keep just enough to stay in business.

I am not saying the resource Google provides should not be leveraged. For most small organizations, this may work very well for a long time to come. But, for companies that plan meaningful ad spends online, think long and hard about how much you will reveal today to any third party. Tomorrow you may be wondering why they are always one step ahead of you at the negotiating table.

Search Engine Marketing Results Tracking

2007-05-27T04:20:00.000-05:00

So far, we covered setting up the keywords and establishing metrics. Now, setting up your tracking to optimize SEM…

With a half way decent IT group it's not difficult to append each click or destination URL with keyword parameters that can be picked up and tracked in your system. Google and Yahoo (even MSN) have auto tagging options that you can set up to append your destination URL with keywords; while you can set up your own parameters to track campaign and ad group information. Since the engines use different parameter names in the auto tracking, this can add a level of complexity that IT groups would rather not see. So, you can opt to use your own parameter names and set them equal to the token or key that pulls in the Keyword.

For Yahoo! the token is {ovkey} and for Google it is {keyword}. So your parameter would look like this:

page.html?keyword={keyword}&campaign=[camp name]&adgroup=[adgroup name]&engine=[search engine name]

This will populate your URL with some of the more basic tracking information. How you structure your tracking information should be based on how you set up your campaign, adgroups and creative. By mirroring the logic behind your set up, you will be able to more easily make sense of your results, especially if there are any odd things (and there will be).

Depending on your IT set up, this may be handled by any number of methods with JavaScript, php, asp etc. and dropped into your database. Once this information is in your system, you'll want to have it appended to the target event, preferably the sale. IT is your best friend here. Learn what they like, candy, cookies, their beverage of choice… you will want to thank them from the start because it will be an on going effort.

Okay, so you don't have an IT group, or they don't have the resources to code tracking and put up data tables and pull reporting (we’ll get to this). If you can get blocks of code set (pasted) onto your pages, Google has an attractive option. Their analytics tool can track program advertising on any site, search or otherwise.
By properly appending your ad urls with their code, not only can you see the conversions, you get a suite of site analytics related to the advertising campaign.

Straight from the Google Analytics answer page:

Campaign Source (utm_source) Example: utm_source=google	Required. Use utm_source to identify a search engine, newsletter name, or other source.
Campaign Medium (utm_medium) Example: utm_medium=cpc	Required. Use utm_medium to identify a medium such as email or cost-per- click.
Campaign Term (utm_term) Example: utm_term=running+shoes	Used for paid search. Use utm_term to note the keywords for this ad.
Campaign Content (utm_content) Examples: utm_content=logolink or utm_content=textlink	Used for A/B testing and content-targeted ads. Use utm_content to differentiate ads or links that point to the same URL.
Campaign Name (utm_campaign) Example: utm_campaign=spring_sale	Used for keyword analysis. Use utm_campaign to identify a specific product promotion or strategic campaign.

To auto generate your own URLs, go here. However, you have to have a Google Adwords account to generate your page level codes. Though you do not need to place actual ads to use the analytics, you do have to sign up for the account.

Okay, so why not just use this in the first place? There are multiple reasons, some less valid than others depending your perspective. For those who are just too gun shy about letting Google know what is going on inside their site, this tool can not be useful. There are those who believe that Google will use the information in ways not necessarily in the advertiser’s best interest. While I do not buy into this, given how much Google wants to ultimately collect (information that is), I am hard pressed to be derisive of those who do.

My reason for not getting too deeply depended on Google is that it does have data access limitations. Doing a dump of all tracking for deeper analysis is not easily possible. Crossing ad spend with ad results is difficult, and for those slightly less proficient with spreadsheets and databases, it might be impossible. While I like Google’s site side analytics and standard report views, it is not really a good SEM optimization tool. I found creating our own is better.

Ultimately, once you have collected target actions associated with engine, campaign, keywords, you also have to pull in ad spend by keyword. All the metrics ideas discussed previously, should be measure in aggregate and in minutia. Detailed engine reporting is the only way to do this. It may be necessary to be so mundane as to just manually enter the information each day into spreadsheets. If you’re fortunate to have a decent SEM management solution like Omniture’s, you can have all the reporting set up automatically. From engine level margin performance down to individual keyword performance, you can be kept informed easily.

The only problem with the daily tracking and reporting processes is that they can lull you into a false sense of success. Keep all your metrics in line and your good, right? Wrong. Establishing and maintaining current metrics assumes you are already fully optimized. No one is. The target is always moving. There are always better ways to structure your keywords, deliver ad copy and marry expectations to experience. Nothing is 100 percent optimized. And even if you are the Einstein of SEM, and were aimed directly at the center of the target… it moved before you pulled the trigger. If the best you could do was a 22% margin when you put the plan together, something changed. There is an opportunity to make it 21.5% now. I know this is vague, and cliché and almost trite, but I have seen improvement come from too many angles to believe that we can not make it better. Set your metric, shoot for it, hit it, then make it harder and start all over.

A Final note on tracking: Set up your URLs NOW. Do not wait until your tracking is in place. At the very least, your information is being recorded on your server logs for later analysis. The longer you wait to append your URLs, the less information you will be able to retrieve.

Setting Search Engine Marketing Metrics - ROI

2007-05-24T05:26:00.000-05:00

Metrics seem to be an obvious component of any SEM program. Unfortunately, it is too easy to set up quick metrics and call it a day. Some of the more common ones are:
-Click through rate (CTR)
-Cost per click (CPC)
-Impressions
-Page views
-Time spent

Some often talked about but seldom used, I mean truly used are:
-Conversions
-Cost per Sale
-Margin
-Units per Sale
-Revenue

In short, metrics tied to real ROI.

It's funny, but I have been in conversations with heads of marketing and advertising for some large companies. They pushed us as an agency to prove the ROI of our program, which we were perfectly willing to do (this was off-line). We could set up unique tracking right into the store and online. They would simply have to provide sales related to the tracking. This is when they balked. Despite all the talk of ROI, most companies are not set up to truly track sales-to-efforts.

With search, we should be able to close the sales-to-effort gap. The preferred Methods are the direct methods. These include attaching source information to each visitor and tracking where they go and what they buy.

While every company is about the sale, not all online activity is. So the question to address is, "why are you doing search advertising?" Somewhere your activity online is expected create or assist in a sale. Are email newsletter subscribers your target? How about inquiries or phone calls (click to call on site, or track-able phone number)? If you can only get as far us measuring visits, then nail down specific pages, or page views or time spent which tie as closely as possible to the sale.

Then know the percent who buy and the average amount of purchases or life time value.

You must also figure SEM's role in generating the sale. Ask, "if we weren't doing SEM how many of these sale would have come any way?" And.. . "If we didn't have radio, direct mail, display or other Brand and promotional marketing, how many sales would SEM miss as a result?" Both are extremely difficult to answer. But both should evoke a line of thinking that helps define the metrics that are as close as possible to real ROI.

The ultimate goal here is to define your activities in terms of revenue generated or margin contributed rather than on some cost basis. Below are some scenarios based on direct sales and email newsletter subscriptions. These may reflect closely what your program is, or they may not. The point here is to let these help you figure a way to set metrics that truly show the value of your efforts.

The closer you can come to isolating your efforts and focus on your margin the better. But, we all know there are other factors, so you will avoid issues if your metrics account for these up front. If you have a good analytics group, they can help you out here. If not, build a consensus among other stakeholders in marketing, advertising and sales. Some methods are Unique sale - answering the question about how many sales does SEM generate that would not happen without it; Assigned Value which provides the amount, or value other media have on each sale, and the indirect where the action is not a sale, but will lead to sales.

Most likely, these will be estimates. But, if you continually monitor these assumptions, you can keep these numbers close to reality and show real value.

Beyond the ability to show the value of what you do, developing a margin based approach can open a different risk paradigm that allows you to find more opportunities. A while back I went off on the whole risk thing.

After you figure the metrics, the next step is setting up your tracking… more to come.

Google's Unversal Search

2007-05-18T06:16:00.000-05:00

When Google announced the Universal Search this week, I was more than just a bit skeptical. From my perspective, they already made it easy for me to dive into images, or video, or news, etc. By placing all these items on the page which is currently web results, they have to guess (although with very sophisticated engineering) what I want and prioritize it accordingly. As a user, I am okay with clicking a category link for a deeper dive.

Then, I waffled. I saw some results of the universal search and it was not overwhelming. They have done a good job of keeping the results clean in this initial foray. Images are there on top, but not too many to be a nuisance. News appears at the bottom, with a few article links available. Not yet truly integrated by relevance. So, all in all, the results are not bad.

Then, I waffled some more. If I was truly interested in news, I don’t want one or two articles at the bottom of the results. And a couple of images, if that is what I wanted, placed at the top would not suffice. I realized that my initial reaction, that it was a good clean result, was based on the fact that I usually want the web results, and these added categories were not interfering in any major way.

However, if I want news or images, or videos or books, then this provided too little of it. I will click on the category link, making the results of the Universal search somewhat moot. I understand that Google engineers are superb. However, when I type in Saturn, sometimes I am looking at the make of car, other times I am looking for pictures of the planet. Until I am actually searching, I don’t even know what I want.

Another chance to waffle… if Google can really evolve this tool (and it is just in its infancy), to provide results more heavily populated toward my intent, this will be great. But, until then, it is really cool engineering but not much more for the users.

The how behind the what in SEM - Optimizing paid search

2007-05-18T05:50:00.000-05:00

Optimizing SEM for Google and Yahoo!, I mean really optimizing it, requires a wide range of tools. As I thought about some at my posts I realized that some of the tactics which seem basic may require core skill sets which are not so basic, or tools that are not used as commonly as I assumed.

So, over the next week or so, I will cover some of the tools we use, or have seen other use, and what they can do for your SEM. This is definitely not all- inclusive so any ideas you have please feel free to post. Also, one of the challenges I have is determining if these fall into the arena of basic or advanced SEM. Since both will be covered, I will try to keep each section to a pattern of starting basic and elevating to advanced. This will be interspersed with commentary about the value of escalating SEM sophistication.

We'll start with outlining and defining Categories of SEM strategies and tactics for which we employ tools. Then in following posts, will delve into the resources, tools and techniques to tackle them. Broadly, some of the areas I’ll hit on are:

-Keyword Selection
Creation and evolution of keywords, Match types and their association to specific ads and landing pages.
-Bid management
The process of adjusting bids to optimize cost relative to a target event.
-Conversion -Tracking - Reporting
Setting up conversion metrics that are based on real margin / profits rather than click CPC and CTR.
-Copy Optimization
Creating copy which improves conversion and front end CTR.

Okay, there is one post that I did a ways back that I think will be good for starting the Keyword selection. If you’re not familiar with developing keyword lists, or just want a perspective on it, check it out. Then, also take a look at Google’s estimator tool. Based on your site, it can help identify keywords and provide estimates (without the proper match type , negative, etc, it can be far off on the estimates).

More to come...

added 5/23:Setting the metrics

Added 5/26: Tracking

Negative Keyword Tool...Google’s Expanded Broad Match Antidote?

2007-05-04T20:52:00.000-05:00

If you have not seen it, keep an eye out for the Negative Keyword tool in your keyword tab on Google. This handy addition will let you eliminate unwanted impressions and clicks that have crept into our programs with the expanded broad match.

While many of us can identify some of the big offenders to use for negative keywords, estimating the impact on impressions is kind of a pain. With the new tool, you can select specific keywords in your ad group, or the whole ad group. It will present you with a list of suggested negatives, along with an estimated reduction in impressions. You can then click to add them. This is great for streamlining your campaigns and tightening quality scores. However, before you jump on this, do some homework.

Take a look at your conversion data. At the very least, set a baseline for sales by keyword "pre negative keyword tool implementation". Then, after the period of time you need to get a sufficient number of clicks / conversions, run the analysis again and compare it to the first. How is your conversion volume and ROI? Ideally, what you should have cut out are clicks that did not lead to sales and impressions that did not drive clicks. If, however, you find that your CTR, or post click conversion rate did not improve, or your order volume dropped, then the negative keyword tool may have filtered out good searches on a broad match of your keyword.

Ideally, your system captures the exact search phrase that triggered your ad. If you do this, then you can track it to the sale, and compare that information with the suggestions from the negative keyword tool to minimize unintended cuts is sales; if the suggested cut actually produced sales, obviously, don't add the negative (see below). Yahoo! and MSN have this as part of their URL tagging also. If you do not have log file analytic tools that can help you pull the search query, you may be able to apply the Yahoo! and MSN information (to capture the exact search term) to the Google tool.

I mentioned above that if you can capture the literal search string, you should (obviously) not add the negative to your campaign. However, an experienced SEM should be calling this out as an opportunity to optimize the campaign. Take these search phrases and turn them into exact match keywords in their own adgroups. This is a great way to reduce costs and improve relevancy. The trouble is that most companies aren't set up to leverage this (it does require time to start and maintain). If you're one of them, then at just take the time to identify them and not to add as a negative.

Brand keyword conversions are not a given.

2007-04-28T03:19:00.000-05:00

I have heard all too often things akin to “Sales from branded keywords are not incremental”, or “why should an SEM be rewarded for sales coming from the Brand? The Brand did all the work.” This portrays a very myopic view of SEM. In fact, it might as well be called “Search” and leave off the “Marketing.” As much as we want to believe ourselves separate and apart from the rest (perhaps some think, 'above'?), we are not. We are (or should be) first and foremost “Marketers.”

On the very surface ask yourself, “where in the purchase funnel is the searcher when they enter a branded keyword?” If they enter “ditech mortgage”, does this necessarily mean they have already decided to buy ditech? No. Compound that with the fact that “diteh home loan” will likely provide a very different type of user. Unless the ‘brand’ converts 100% of the prospects who use a branded search, the 'brand' is not simply 'selling itself,' there is more work needed. So, how do you improve conversions?

A good SEM works very closely with the client to understand the relationship between the search term, ad copy, destination URL, competitive set, closing offers, buy flow, LTV and much more. Fore instance, Atlas released a study showing that conversions from clicks to sales are proportionately lower during certain parts of the day (this concurred with our own studies). So, what do you do about it? Should you provide a different experience between 8am and 11am vs 11am and 2pm? How should you manage your bids? If you limit your perspective to “brands sell themselves” you will likely never ask questions like these, never mind dedicate the resources needed to answer them.

Last year we met with a partner of ours for whom we are doing a specific acquisition program. During the course of the conversation, they mentioned some of the things they were doing on there core search program with the (then) current SEM. We made some minor suggestions and observations, which they then implemented (they did not mention this until much later). After doing this, their results improved significantly. They are now working with us on their corporate program as well as our acquisition program.

Now, the reason we were able to propose the things we did is because we did not assume the brand simply sold itself. In our own program for the partner, we have (and continue to) tested through multiple scenarios, through the complete buying cycle (we do not pass off the user, we have a closed loop process) and were able to provide ‘off-the-cuff’ direction that was very beneficial to them. Only by questioning the assumptions do we find the answers that lead to more conversions.

Well, at this point one may ask, shouldn’t all good SEMs do this? I will say that most want to. But, if your compensation is fixed to spend, and the client has only a set spend budget, what kind of resources can you really afford to dedicate to total program analytics? Can you afford dedicated experience experts, research experts, or fully staffed analytics groups? No matter how well the brand is doing, assume it can do better and behave accordingly. Your clients will see growth they did not know was available and you may reap the rewards, if you structure your compensation properly.

With Google’s Preferred CPC sit back, Relax, and… maybe not

2007-04-25T03:34:00.000-05:00

What if I told you that I could guarantee the price you'll pay for every dinner you eat over the next month? This way, you can set your dining budget and not have to think about the cost of each meal. What I won't tell you is what the meal will be, if you'll get an appetizer or dessert nor how long you'll have to wait in line for a table. My guess is you would say "No thank you."

Google's new Preferred CPC is not that bad, but it can be if you're not careful. That means it is far from the "set it and forget it" solution. Since the value of a click is influenced by more than the CPC, and the influences can change while the CPC remains relatively constant, you can hardly afford to ignore the campaign for any length of time.

Ultimately, you want to manage to the cost / profit per specific event (Conversion usually) and you'll want as many of those events as you can get. If competitors increase their bids or improve their quality score, you will loose position and your CTR will drop, giving you fewer leads. If their offer improves you will likely see lower conversions. So, while your CPC remains constant, you're volume will drop and you pay more for each conversion you do keep. Kind of makes you wish you knew what was on the menu, huh?

If you have limited resource and the Preferred CPC tool is very appealing to you, consider two tools, which when combined will serve as a daily warning of any metric-changing events.

First, created auto reports in Google and have them emailed to you each morning. They should include past 30 days and yesterday’s numbers for: Impressions, Clicks, CTR, Position, Cost and CPC (though this should be stable). You want to look for any sudden changes, or trends that will take you outside you're target metrics.

Second, sign up for adgooroo.com and set auto alerts to be emailed to you showing new ads and new competitors (preferred bid or not, this is a good tool.) This will alert you to competitive pressure that may hurt conversions.

Finally, do or quick calculation and divide the orders for yesterday by the clicks. If the conversion is different than you expected, dig deeper...something changed.

By now, you’re probably asking, “what’s the point of the preferred CPC if I have to do all this?” Well, that is the point. The CPC is not the key metric here. The amount you’re willing to pay depends on many factors, all of which you’ll need to monitor no matter what. This is not to say that the Preferred CPC does not have a place. If all your other metrics are relatively stable, or you are driving traffic with only the cost per click as a prime metric, then this will work for you. If, however, you manage your program to a profit metric, using the Preferred CPC is moderately beneficial and must not lull you into a comfort zone. SEM is just not that simple.

Yet more protection we don't need, from Utah

2007-04-12T15:08:00.000-05:00

This week, Utah, under the guise of protecting us poor, ignorant consumers, has taken a step (which will likely be reversed) to prevent businesses from diverting our online attention by making it illegal for anyone to bid on a trademark term they don’t own. We are not talking about using the trademark in the ad, just showing an ad when the trademark is searched.

In rationalizing this law, Utah House Majority Leader David Clark likened the bidding on others’ trademark terms to diverting a shopper who goes to a particular department store to buy a dress shirt. He said, "You get right to the front door and somebody whisks you away to a different store."

His analogy is a bit flawed…okay, a lot flawed.

A more accurate analogy might be: I intend to drive to Menards (home improvement store) to get paint, and on the way I see the sign out in front of Home Depot advertising a sale on paint, so I go there.

Or, a bit further removed, Burger King sets up shop across the street from McDonald’s knowing that they will benefit from diverting some of the Mc D’s traffic.

I believe our country is what’s been called by Milton Friedman a free and open market (at least as close as we can really get). Given how “republican” Utah is, I’d think the state legislators might have something better to do than inhibit free markets and communication.

If Mr. Clark is really serious about not letting one company divert our attention during the purchase process, then Utah ought to force businesses to remove all exterior signage. Goodness forbid, we may actually find a better deal by reading advertising along the way.

Managing Contextual Ads

2007-04-11T04:54:00.000-05:00

Rant on why there is only one real contextual ad method

Running a contextual advertising campaign through the big three can be very easy, click and go. They make it simple, fast, and if you’re not paying attention, expensive (relatively). Even with Smart Pricing from Google, you can pay too much. In these scenarios, your ad CPC is the same as or directly related to your search CPC (Smart Pricing adjusts it downward). First suggestion: Don’t run a contextual ad buy mixed in with your search program – more below.

Before you start contextual advertising, identify your metrics. For some, the desired event is exactly the same as the search program, a sale, newsletter signup or other asset building event. For others, it may be less lofty, such as engagement metrics which they believe will be a precursor to an asset building event; something like page views or time spent, or an information request. This is not just good marketing, it sets the stage for keeping search and contextual apart. Only after thinking about this for some time do people begin to create a separation between contextual advertising and search. Even though these can be run through the same campaign / ad group, they are actually two distinct vehicles and the metrics should treat them as such. Which brings me to my next point…

To properly manage a contextual ad program, you should create an independent or separate campaign (or at least a separate ad group.) The new campaign will allow you to set a max budget and target independently from the search campaign. This has some advantages when it comes to optimization.

With proper tracking, you can more easily measure your results and manage the program against the content target metrics. You will also be able to finitely control the budget that the contextual program can absorb based on how well it is performing. By keeping it separate, you create a necessarily separate focus on the relevant metrics and value.

Since the intention of a person that sees your contextual ad is likely different than that of a searcher, the ad should treat them differently. Rather than a message used for search that may say “buy now”, your content ad can be more targeted to a content audience with a “more information” message for instance. You’re hitting someone in a different stage of the purchase funnel, so cater your message accordingly – then test it.

Like search, the content of the ad, and the landing page should be as specific as possible. This will allow the content matching to more closely align your message with the information the user is viewing. Allow some ad groups to remain broad, such as “home entertainment systems”, while others get progressively more targeted down to the models (if appropriate). Populate the ad group with the relevant keywords, allowing for some but limited duplication at the more general keyword level and reserving model or product specific keywords for the ad groups with appropriately targeted copy.

Finally, the landing page should be as targeted to the ad copy as possible. Bring the user deep into your site if the subject becomes more relevant. This helps keep the user engaged by tightly connecting your content to that which triggered the ad. If someone is at the stage of researching a specific product, and your ad speaks to it, but you bring them to a general category page, you’re taking them back several steps in the purchase process. In their eyes, they’ve already covered this material. You’re job is to add value to the research process, not set it back a step. So, help them by keeping their progress going and making the landing page well targeted.

Don’t let the similarities in considerations between search and contextual advertising mislead you. These considerations, at some level, are the same in all marketing efforts. It is what you do with them that will distinguish the vertical. Only by virtue of technology is contextual advertising related to search advertising. From a consumer’s perspective and therefore from a marketing perspective, these are two entirely different beasts. From messaging to landing page to desired event, these two are distinct. While it may be easier to lump them into a single buy, it is far less effective. Keep them separate in thought and practice.

Contextual ads – from rant to recommendation

2007-04-11T04:49:00.000-05:00

Google is search, right? Well, before they got into tv, radio and print, they were also ‘not search’. They were, well ‘seek’. In other words, rather than wait for the user to search for you, you would ‘seek out’ the user. This is popularly known as contextual advertising.

This is the area between search advertising and traditional online advertising. When it was launched (with AdSense publishers in 2003), it was based on the Google algorithm which compared ad content with publisher site content and tried to make a match based on how closely the two appeared to be related. To make up for the difference in relevancy and proximity to actual conversion (search being deemed much closer to the desired action than content), Google implemented Smart Pricing. This adjusted the CPC for contextual downward in proportion to the click value based on Google’s calculations.

The reality is there are a lot of content players today. MSN / Live and Yahoo! are have their versions. Quigo has Ad Sonar, Vibrant Media, Pulse 360 (Kanoodle) and more are out there. Unfortunately, since Google launched the contextual advertising rocket, there have been different and not so well related notions of contextual advertising. Randy Schwartz covered this a couple of years ago, outlining four types. His types make sense. However, I am not so sure that I accept that these are all indeed contextual advertising.

In my mind, contextual looks at the context, or content, of the page and then based on that decides if the ad is appropriate. This is different than picking a site about a general subject matter. For instance, if I sell baseball equipment, I’d rather run on a news article page about the home town baseball team (even if the page itself is under the subject local news), than on a sports site’s page about the Stanley Cup Playoffs. This is the difference between content / context and subject / category targeting. I make this point to lend context (no pun intended) to what follows.

Type of Contextual Advertising
Algorithmically based: The first, and in my opinion only true, contextual advertising method is that based on the actual CONTENT of the page. In this method, the algorithm looks at all that is on the page, looks at your ad content (landing page too, if done right) and decides if there is a match. In the more advanced methods, the algorithm looks for negative associations and does not deliver your ad (ie a car ad on a page about automotive recalls).

Keyword Based: Another, and in my mind poor, method is inline contextual (contextual being something of a misnomer) keyword based. It looks for keywords in the body of a page, creates a hyper link on the keyword and then either displays your ad on the mouse over with a hyperlink or sets a hyperlink though to your page. I have seen words highlighted for products that were in fact related to the word, but had absolutely nothing to do with the page content (car filters linked to room air filter, Home entertainment content linked to CA (B2B IT) based on the word ‘Clarity’).

Category Based: Advertising is base simply by selecting content categories (like finance, automotive, sports, etc) on which your ad will appear. While the content may be relevant, this is just like everything else we’ve done online. Select your target audience, find what sites they like (or types of sites), and advertise there (okay, over simplification, but you get the point). Google set this up (properly) as site targeting, rather than contextual advertising. Others are pushing this as contextual advertising. The problem is your ads always appear regardless of the strength of the connection.

Behavioral Based: This has somewhat been taken away from content and spawned a category unto itself as it should be. I won’t elaborate – its just behavioral targeting, or BT.

The recommendations for Managing Contextual Ads are based on the algorithmically based method. The others have a place, but they are not really contextually based in the pure sense of the idea.

Recommendation =>

If you don’t own the sale, make darn sure those who do need you.

2007-03-27T03:47:00.000-05:00

Google’s PPA has launched a litany of articles ranging from an acknowledgement that this is just one more arrow in their quiver, to “Oh no, they are going to put affiliate networks out of business,” and even “PPC is going away.”

For me, it is just another arrow. Unlike PPC, where there were a few so-so players (with many more not so good ones), and they could dominate just by being very good, the PPA world has competition that is quite competent; just as radio sales, t.v. sales and newspapers. But, this announcement brought to mind the broader guessing game: What’s Google up to?

When the company launched into radio, I though it was far a field. Ditto for t.v.; newspapers, not so much, but still out there. My main contention was and still is that agencies won’t simply step aside as Google develops direct relationships with advertisers, or forces blind buys to media. Advertisers themselves are not necessarily interested in disintermediation either. Well, my perspective was skewed by the nature of my interaction at Google, with the sales and agency relationship groups. While still valid (I believe), I don’t know that it is the relevant perspective.

Google is fundamentally a technology company. The sales side has benefited greatly from the door-opening-great-product, relevancy based PPC Search. They have always said their goal was to make the advertising buying process more efficient. But it was always communicated as something over which Google will have control in the relationship. Media placement decided by Google and the goal of developing direct to advertiser relationships have given me pause. Efficiency is important, relationship control is paramount.

Well, most of the transactions are going to take place with or without Google (SMEs are a different and very viable prospect). But, Google can make them better. By interjecting themselves at all levels, Google can learn what makes the process inefficient at every stage of the marketing communications chain (brand / product awareness down to acquisition), and then offer up the tools to improve it. They become the conduit through which all processes are connected and managed.

Ultimately, I do not see Google owning the advertiser / agency – to– media relationship. But, they may just build the tools on which the agency – media relationship depends. They become the Intel inside the ‘machine.’ Agencies can claim a level of proficiency and acumen as they sell their use of the “Google Media Engine” as part of the tactical implementation of their unique agency strategy skills.

When we sell our skills as agencies, we focus on the strategic abilities we have. Uncovering the unseen, identifying opportunities and ultimately growing our client’s business along side them as no other agency can. Too often though, we get stuck on our media buying prowess. It boils down to efficiency – how much do we get for each dollar spent.

The truth is, any good agency, and there are a lot of them, can, or has access to efficient media buying. It is the minimum price for entry. Nonetheless, we spend a fair amount of time convincing prospects we do this better than anyone. It is a commodity. The real value is in identifying the strategic value of a media and being able to integrate it into the overall objectives.

If Google’s tools can abate this question somewhat and allow us to focus on our truly unique strategic abilities, then they will add a lot to the equation. If, however, they simply try to interject themselves between advertiser / agency and media, I don’t believe it will work out for anyone.

Embrace Risk. Then optimize it

2007-03-20T05:17:00.000-05:00

Compensation models vary for interactive Marketing services. When they are negotiated, both sides want to shift as much risk as reasonable to the other side. This is why agencies like the commission model. No matter what happens, they get their check. Advertisers like performance models. They only pay for what they get, even if they get less due to factors outside the scope of advertising (I’ve been hit with distribution issues in the CPG industry). Typically, these two meet in the middle.

One such model is at the heart of the online performance marketing industry, specifically "cost per." It may be an action, lead, customer or other quantifiable metric that can be sourced to specific efforts.

At the resent IAB Leadership conference on performance marketing in Chicago there was much discussion on the issue of the most common method: paying the same amount for each like lead (meaning amount of information submitted.) In general the conversation focused on moving to a pay per media source, allowing the cost and value of the source to be evident to the client. So, Instead of being paid $50 per, the client will pay based on the relative cost of the Media. The idea behind this is transparency. If one media cost $25 and the other cost $50 then the agency is paid $30 and $60 respectively with a 20% commission. Or its cost plus. The media cost, plus $5 per lead, not exceed $50 per lead net for example.

Before I get to my perspective, a little background: The company I work for, Leapfrog Online is a customer acquisition company. We do not get paid until our partners get a paying customer. We front the media cost, so if something doesn't work, it comes out of our pocket. We operate a closed loop process of integrating our experience and backend with our partners’ systems in order to control the media and the experience. We track everything to the value of the customer it generated. I bring this up for 2 reasons: 1) like other quality online firms we track EVERYTHING (I think even more so, but that might just be pride talking) and 2) more so than other firms, our financial success depends on the quality of the lead and our ability to optimize the quality by controlling and adjusting the media, messaging and experience based on the lead source (because we don’t get paid until the lead becomes a sale.)

Okay, so what does all this shameless self promotion have to do with the IAB Conference on lead Gen? A lot. The real issue is not the quality of the media source. Rather, it is the ability to optimize during the entire sales process. If a client treats every lead the same, then the cost of the media is the only variable that can be used to equalize per customer value. When this happens, the obvious next step for the compensation discussion is limited to lead source, or media.

If an agency is on cost plus, or percent of spend model, they are protected. Therefore, the client needs to be vigilant in managing the media sources, because the client absorbs all of the risk (caveat – the agency will be fired if the leads are junk). The challenge here is that clients are typically risk averse. According to a February 2007 ARF study, 10% of companies budget $0.00 for new initiatives or higher risk media. Another 74% have 1%-25% set a side (I’m guessing more are closer to 1% than 25%.) I’ll get more into this as an issue a bit later.

If, however we work with an average compensation per lead, or sale, the client is protected and the agency takes the risk. This is good for everyone, if the client and the agency can mutually track back to quality, and optimize accordingly.

Consider the following media based compensation scenario with a client target cost of $50 per unit (lead, sale, trial, whatever counts as a unit):

If we work on a media level compensation, media 2 will not make it beyond the first month (likely not beyond the first week). On the surface, it appears inefficient and the client will pay $28,000 more than they have targeted. This is 1,000 units that will not make it back into the plan.

At this point, I have heard people say, “at that price, it shouldn’t be in the mix.” This is the typical risk-averse perspective. If a client is operating under monthly and quarterly financials, a negative $28k is going to stick out like a sore thumb. On top of that, the agency still gets well compensated even though the units are at a loss.

Now consider the opportunity perspective if the agency has the risk:

In month one, we take a bath on media 2. But, we are the experts. If we control the media, messaging and experience, we can optimize it. By month 2, we lower our losses, and our percentage compensation is good again. However, the real value comes in month three. With the increased efficiency, we can roll new media into the mix and start the process over again.

In the first scenario, we can make more money in month 1. However, we lose opportunity down the line. The client also loses. They give up a potential 1,000 additional units per month and the opportunity to gain quality volume from additional media. Even if we find that media 2 can only support 500 units at an acceptable price, then that is 500 more than we would likely contribute under the first scenario.

At the heart of this are two issues: Control and Trust.

Control over the experience is paramount. Either direct agency control, or significant agency / client partnerships providing the agency with influence and access to the client’s experience. Effective control can not happen without very detailed tracking and analytics. Absent these, all bets are off.

Trust is at the heart of every partnership. Sometimes our reluctance to offer information results less from a lack of trust and has more to do with technical limitations. However, we must have transparency in both directions to make this work. Agencies must know the complete path (online and off line) to customer acquisition in order to truly understand and optimize the customer experience. While I am vehemently against micro managing of the online programs by clients or client service teams, agencies must be willing to open up on where they are placing the advertising and the relative value (easily enough done with proper tracking).

Every partnership is different for various reasons. But, to make the best of it, we need to stop seeing risk as something to be avoided, and start seeing it as something to be optimized.

AOL Search Back, a second chance at the click you missed the first time

2007-03-14T06:11:00.000-05:00

When it comes to search, it used to be that you bought the keyword, it was clicked or it wasn’t; if it was, the person bought or he didn’t.

Then we saw “re-targeting” from companies like Revenue Science and a few others. If a person clicks, and he doesn’t buy, you show them ads (it was just text, now it is text or display) throughout the Revenue Science network of partner sites. You know these folks are interested, but you didn’t hit the mark the on the first click. Now you can try different messages and keep talking to them until they convert, or for a set period of time.

But what if you missed the mark on the click? Almondnet developed technology to target people based on the searches they conducted even if they did not click on your ad. The problem is, they are focused on verticals (mostly tech). Not something most mainstream advertiser can leverage. Around since 1998, they have learned a great deal. They just need to scale.

Well, this week at the AOL Road Show in Chicago, AOL mentioned (rather casually) “Search Back”. Partnering with Revenue Science on BT, and leveraging their search volume as well as there own network of sites, AOL takes post search (not just post click) targeting to mainstream advertisers. There properties cover approximately 90% of US internet users. By knowing your audience, you can message well targeted users even if they did not click on your search ad (though, if they converted with someone else, this is too late). If you really understand them, how about targeting them just before they are in market (think search on “prenatal care”, and mini van ads in about 9 months).

I was critical of Google’s BT search approach (personalized search) because we could not easily segment messaging (yet). AOL has addressed that. With Revenue Science’s optimization technology, this is going to be leaps above where we are.

The rumor is that we should see something in Q2. There are categories that can be targets, or you can have custom targeting (about 200 keywords). AOL was presenting this as part of their overall BT package in February. The timeline appears to be consistent.

Click Fraud, a "problem" advertisers do nothing about.

2007-03-06T19:14:00.000-06:00

It was a curious set of arguments that followed Google’s release of .02% click fraud. Most centered a round the concept of “we don’t know what we don’t know.” Therefore in our perpetual state of ignorance, we should expect that Google solve all our problems. We have gone from wanting them to stop click fraud, to wanting them to make up for technical issues SEMClubhouse.

What I found most intriguing was the argument that since the .02% click fraud rate is based on the advertisers who have actually lodged a complaint , then it can not possibly accurately reflect the true state of click fraud. Why? It is because the vast majority of advertisers do not lodge complaints. In fact, they do not even measure it.

(Donna Bogatin does a good job of discussing the soundness of the number itself and Gord Hotchkiss on why he believes the Google Number here)

Think about it. Click fraud is an overwhelming problem. The evidence to back this up: Since the vast majority of companies do not measure click fraud, then they must be victims of it.

So lets get this straight. Google says they block most invalid clicks – ranging up to 10%. Of those they do not block, but are brought to their attention by advertisers, they find .02% is what made it past their detectors, and was actually billed to the advertisers (See Donna’s discussion, as this may be .02% of all Google generated clicks, not .02% of the clicks for the audited advertisers – big difference).

What the antagonists are arguing in this case is that the real click fraud is not present with those who lodge complaints, but is actually taking place with those who are silent.

Well, here is my good old capitalist perspective. If a business is not concerned enough to take the steps to detect and report click fraud on its own, then we should not force the search engines to baby sit them. If they bring it to the search engines’ attention, then they should receive a fair and vigorous response designed to make them whole.

The bottom line is that (despite the anti-Google block’s contention), click fraud is bad business for Google. As soon as the metrics are not profitable, companies will stop and the engines will lose. Keeping the issue in check is in their interest.

However, perpetuating panic is in the interests of ‘click-fraud-detection’ companies. Keep in mind that these companies measure the clicks you received that should not have been billed (Shuman Ghosemajumder addresses some of this). What they are not doing is identifying the click for which you were billed, and segmenting them out for reconciliation. When the companies presented the findings to Google, the vast majority of the “fraudulent” clicks were never billed – things like quick multiple clicks, back button clicks, etc.(see Google’s explanation here) If all you look at is the log file, then you might well believe that you are a victim. But, when you actually count the clicks for which you were billed, the argument falls apart based on Google’s response.

What I have not seen is a counter response to a Google reviews. I have not seen a company show that they were billed for 100,000 clicks, but their log file clearly shows that there were only 80,000 valid clicks, and Google ignored it ( I have heard some say they’ve gotten 10s of thousands of dollars in credits from Google, but no proof). If you have seen it, please provide the links.

Yahoo! Panama, the best is yet to come...how you use it

2007-03-02T19:24:00.000-06:00

The new search algorithm has been released for about a month now. I have seen several ‘out-of-the-gate’ measurements from agencies and measurement companies alike. Click rate is gone up, CPCs have gone up, or down, conversions have changed by X…

I think all these are very interesting as a metric of how our old ways to manage a Yahoo! account played out in the new system. But, the real impact here will be seen over the next few months. We will start to leverage Panama when everyone starts to rotate messaging and measure CTR by ad and carry this through to conversion rates. The real performance of Panama will be seen when we drive it around the town a few times.

Certainly, we will see improvements in performance. Not just because Yahoo! will calculate relevancy, but we will be able to adjust ad copy, simultaneously rotate multiple versions and compare the ultimate ROI by ad. Yahoo! will be able to measure the CTR, but we will be able to measure the conversion. As most of us look to the conversion, we would gladly give up non-productive clicks while holding our conversions steady, or increase them. So, our CTR goes down (but so does our costs), while our conversions go up. These will be an interesting next couple of months as we optimize the campaigns rather than just compare them to the old system.

Google Click Fraud Number...so what will you do?

2007-03-02T19:19:00.000-06:00

Okay, now the world can move forward. We finally have a number from Google on Click Fraud (0.02%). Now, ask yourself what will you do differently? What if they said 5%, or 10%? If you answer anything other than “nothing”, then why have you not made these improvements before?

For me, click fraud amounted to two things:
1) potential cost recovery
2) an ego hit because some schmuck out there got the better of me

As for my campaigns, it means very little. If you do search right, measure to the margin per transaction, then the click fraud issue is already accounted for in your metrics. You’re already optimizing your programs, so there should be no reaction to the click fraud announcement.

It’s not that we should ignore the problem. By staying vigilant, we prevent it from ballooning on us and turning a once profitable medium into a loss, or at least marginalizing the profit. However, by staying focused, we can mitigate the impact of click fraud, and improve program performance.

Giving up control is good for Quigo, and the rest

2007-03-01T04:04:00.000-06:00

It is the number one place to work in America according to Fortune Magazine and at the heart of the reason is that it is all about the people; the atmosphere, the food, the events. Google knows how to treat the employees. They culturally understand the dynamic of interpersonal relationships in making people happy.

This understanding expands to the way they treat their advertisers. At Google, I have worked with some of the nicest people I’ve met. They cultivate the relationships, understand the importance of good communication and go out of their way to make us feel important within the scope of business.

However, I wonder how Google views this dynamic between businesses and people outside its scope. They build tools that interject themselves between advertisers and publishers, agencies and clients. I looked at this before when it came to radio. The principals of dMark left, in part because they did not believe you can simply automate the relationship between buyers and sellers. There is a value to the interpersonal contact.

Quigo is demonstrating that the principle holds true for contextual advertising as well. While their transparency is important, I believe one of the greatest assets their platform has is the ability of the publisher to have direct sales and interaction with the advertisers. Instead of using the platform to create a vale between the two as Google does (and Yahoo!), they use it to help facilitate the interactions, with the added value of providing additional advertisers to the publisher if they choose.

Google’s push for innovation has been hampered by its dependence on the status quo. Now that they are big and mainstream with investors to please, they can’t do things that will put their current revenue at greater risk. Thus, change will only come when pushed on the market by other players. In this case, transparency and facilitating relationships between publishers and advertisers come at Quigo’s beckoning. Google follows in transparency.

The next acquiescence from Google will have to come in the form of control, allowing the publisher, through the Google platform to directly manage the advertiser base for its site. This is not what Google wants. They understand their importance in the advertiser relationship. But, if Quigo scales, pulls more major publishers, Google will be relegated to tertiary site traffic via adSense. I don’t think most people believe this is likely. But the dynamics of interpersonal relationships make this a very real possibility.

Despite 6 Sigma (and its predecessors) and all the business books’ protestations to the contrary, the world of business does not begin and end with efficiency. Yes, we must spend our dollars wisely. But, wise decisions start with trust, and trust is about relationships, not numbers. While Google understands this in its dealings with its employees, and with the work they do with us directly, they seam to discount it when looking at the interactions between other businesses. They can not assume their tools will be adopted over alternatives simply by claiming they are more efficient or effective. I guess the change here is that we now have alternatives.

Keyword selection for the uninitiated

2007-02-24T05:54:00.000-06:00

This week I read an article by Sandy Parish about the importance of keyword selection strategy. It posed the question that new-to-search-marketing people might ask, which is: Do I use specific terms or do I use broad terms. She elaborated on the virtues of modified broad terms. I agree with her point, that if you are considering broad terms then modify them to be more relevant to your specific offering.

For instance, say you are selling a book and it happened to be a police drama. The broad term for search would be “books.” The modified broad terms would be “police drama books” or “drama books” or “literature drama”. You get the idea…there are many ways to go. You use the modified terms, arrange your ad copy accordingly, and your relevance goes up, your cost goes down and or positioning improves.

In addition to the modified broad match approach, we can offer those new to online marketing (in particular, search), even more guidance. The underlying premise being:

Start with the basics, the obvious; limit your financial exposure and move on from there.

For those of us who have been in the game for a while the term “basics” has a broader scope, and greater financial exposure is less risky, being mitigated by our experience. For the truly new, consider the following.

Keyword selection
Start with the narrow, but don’t ignore the broad (I’ll explain later). Use company name, brand, product, style, model, etc. For example, you’re a retail store selling shirts. Pick your top sellers and start a list. Think both in terms of how the products are marketed and how consumers talk about them. The apparel industry talks about “dress” shirts, but if consumers refers to them as ‘long sleeved’ or ‘business’ shirts, then use these terms as well. Your list might look something like this (abridged):

Company:    My Shirt Shop
Product:    Dress Shirt
Brands:     Boss, Faconnable, Ike Behar.
Styles:     Classic Dress, Tailored Dress,
Patterns:   Solid, Stripe, checked,
Colors:     blue, red, white, pink…

Obviously, your attributes and ultimate list will depend on the product or service you’re marketing.

Then, mix and match in a way that is logical to your industry and products. This could get quite long. The engines have keyword suggestion tools that you can use. However, when it comes to developing a comprehensive list, you know your business, don’t underestimate yourself.

Examples of mix and match:
Boss Classic Dress Shirt
Faconnable tailored dress shirt
Ike Behar blue solid tailored dress shirt
My Shirt Shop Shirt

As I mentioned, this can get long, that is why you start by limiting the scope to your best sellers (remember, this is for those new to search).

Ad Copy
Each of these keywords should be set in like groups so that ad copy can be tailored to them. For instance all keywords / phrases with “Boss” & “Blue” in one ad group, so the ad copy can include these terms and be relevant to all keywords. How far you take this is up to you. Technically, the farther you take it, the more relevant your ads will be and the better your results will be. Also, the destination URL should be to a page that is as close to the keyword / ad copy as possible. Don’t send them to a “shirt” page if you have a “Boss Shirt” page. Relevancy is the key to efficiency in search.

Now the question comes in, what about the keyword “shirt” or “dress shirt” as the modified broad. Here is my advice. Use them. But, limit your financial exposure. Create separate campaigns for these keywords, and cap the daily spend to an amount you are willing to invest in learning. With a CPC of $0.50, capping your daily spend at $10 gives you 20 clicks a day, 600 in a month with a spend of $300. During this time, you can adjust ad copy for relevance to improve results and move the CPC. Before the month is out, you should know if the conversions at $0.50 (or any other amount) are enough to justify the cost. These numbers are simply for demonstration, but the principle applies at $0.10 or $2.50 CPC.

In reality, this same principle applies to the entire program. Segment it, cap the campaigns at reasonable amounts and adjust the CPC and copy to make the program profitable on a per click basis. Then, when you have the CPC range set, lift your daily cap.

Now, expand to new keywords, monitor, adjust, expand again, monitor, adjust….you get it.

One of the quandaries posed by Sandy was that a too limited keyword set would not drive enough traffic. I would pose that the long term view should be taken. Set a foundation of good practices that can be scaled and the volume will come.

Ironic that Mobile search is paving a cow path…

2007-02-24T05:07:00.000-06:00

The mobile market represents the next wave in search. However, I see two current problems: 1) the current scope of ‘innovation’ is geared to subject matter that consumers currently seek (ring tones, images), rather than looking to the next level and 2) new search methods are mostly slight improvements on the difficult keying and navigation process. Even with this there are some neat things going on.

Microsoft purchased MotionBridge to enhance the mobile search capabilities for Live.com. It does appear to be a better way to do things. But, it also appears to be the proverbial paving the cow path. Rather than the typical list of links, you enter the phrase in a single field and MotionBridge returns a category segmented list of links. In this example you can see that, depending on what you type in, there may be a predefine list of links from the portal, or search results segmented into types of content. They also provide numeric codes for certain topics. For instance Sports is 77678 (I don’t know that I could remember the code to enter for my interest). The limitations here continue to be the reliance on the keypad as the input device. Because this is the LCD for most devices, it makes sense. But, real innovation challenges “what makes sense” and offers us a new and better way.

Medio takes a different approach by trying to predict what it is you actually want, and giving you the information rather than links. The example shows that they believe most searches go uncompleted because the trail you need to follow is too long. Through personalization, Medio is betting that they will know you well enough to present you with the answer to your query, foregoing the need for a list of links. I have to agree that, given the limited scope of subject matter that people seek on mobile search, this predictive modeling will be okay. But again, text input is a limitation. Also, the algorithms are based (necessarily ) on how people currently use the service. Those who use search with any regularity know that the ability to guess what we want is not terribly accurate (how often is the first returned result where you stop?).

Late last year, Medio and Verizon partnered to provide VZ customers easy access to ringtones, games and pictures. This is the equivalent of vertical search online and it makes sense given that the Medio's purpose is to deliver the answer to the query rather than links to possible answers. It replaces knowledge of the user with a well defined scope. As our interest in mobile search subject matter expands, this becomes less possible.

One of the more interesting applications is the image recognition query. Snap a picture of “something”, send it SMS and you will receive related links. Mobot has built an application that does this. Imagine having an ad in a hotel tourist book / magazine for your restaurants, with a message saying take a picture and send it sms for a return of coupons, maps, reservation function, etc (until the functionality becomes widely known, the message will be needed) . Suddenly the magazine ad becomes an easy way to share more information and facility business. If you have a recognizable logo, you can have consumers send in the picture and have any number of things returned; ring tones, locations near the person, promotions, WAP links, etc. This application, though limited right now, provides a view into one possibility of initiating a search query (I know that sending a short code via sms can do similar things, but the pattern recognition is the key point here).

It was interesting reading Gord Hotchkiss’ epiphany article, "I have seen the future." He wrote about the next generation of processor chips brining us closer to the possibility of voice recognition. This, when it happens, will be a gateway into real innovation.

A case for your value as a marketer.

2007-02-22T03:57:00.000-06:00

I read Aaron Goldmans post, “Should Marketers Outsource Search" on Media Post, and a flood of memories came in.

Before I get into my reaction, a little background will lend context. I started off in DM with direct mail and telesales for a local theatre. After a couple of years, I joined a large ad agency in the media group becoming a planner and buyer for television, radio, print, and OOH for consumer package goods and automotive clients. My next stint was in a national yellow pages agency. By 1994 I was working with clients and account teams to develop YP strategies as well as developing our first on line ads programs (can you say Prodigy? – if you have to ask, don’t bother), which naturally morphed into SEM. Anyway, I came to the YP clients with brand experience, strategy development and segmentation know-how derived from a fairly diverse background.

I can tell you that most of the clients we talked to thought Yellow Pages was a no brain-er. The only thing that kept in-house departments at bay was the fact that it was labor intensive. You couldn’t just bring in a person and have them do it. So, how is this relevant to SEM outsourcing? What it did was provide the opportunity to demonstrate the unique skill sets and abilities that are really required for the “no brain-er” media. Eventually respect for our value was achieved by:

1) Learning and clearly demonstrating our knowledge of the clients’ industry, brand and products. Professionally, this put us (if not yet our medium) on par and in some cases above the client in their eyes (you’d be amaze by how many people know their brand and products, but lack insight into the industry as a whole).

2) The next key factor was using this knowledge to develop media specific strategies that tied in very closely with the general media and overall company strategies. It was through the strategic use of our medium that we demonstrated to the clients that not taking it in-house was a wise strategic move as much as it was a good financial move.

Lessons learned: Don’t allow yourself to be relegated to talking only about search. Engage the client in strategic applications beyond search and beyond online. Through a consistent application of your knowledge beyond the basics, beyond your medium, you instill a level of respect that earns you a seat at the media table. At the large agency, we always started with the clients’ business objectives, then tailored the media strategies accordingly. There was no presumption on the part of the client that they could take media buying in-house. Not because buying a :30 second spot was too difficult. But because they did not have the knowledge needed to develop the strategies to know if a :30 second spot was even the right answer (actually, we all knew it was before we asked the question ).

I have since left the yellow pages industry. Interactive pretty much consumed most of my time there, and for a while now, consumes all of it (professionally). But the same lessons apply. I see our client services team demonstrate these realities every day. I can not remember the last “search” conversation I had with a client that did not expand well beyond search and into their business.

Share matters, but campaign performance matters more

2007-02-21T13:41:00.000-06:00

When it comes to talking about the search engines, we inevitably get to (if not immediately get to) market share. There are three sources most frequently quoted: Nielsen/NetRatings, comScore and Hitwise. A lot of attention is paid to these guys when they release the numbers. Personally, I do not follow these numbers with great rigor. Rather, I prefer to follow the performance of our individual search programs which span the more and lesser used engines. If there is a major share shift (unlikely), I’ll see it before the reports come out.

That said, there is a long term view that the ratings can provide. I think following Danny Sullivan’s perspective is good (essentially, not reading anything into changes that do not consistently breakthrough share bands). If you follow the measurements, it helps to have a perspective on how they get their numbers. This is not a statistical description (I’m not qualified); just a top line. For a good review take a look are Matt Belkin’s blog. He covers pros and cons of the panel vs click stream data methodologies.

Nielsen/ NetRatings utilizes a panel method (computer resident tracking)(NetView) and site-side technology (StieCensus) launched in September 2005 (Integrated to overcome the cookie deletion issues).

comScore’s uses a panel method via qSearch with proxy technology tracking the users web behavior.

Hitwise uses ISP data to anonymously collect click stream data.

One thing to keep in mind is that these players are also tying site traffic analytics into off line data – shopping, behavior, demographics, lifestyles, etc. So, search market share is really a small part of what they do. It just tends to get the most attention.

If you follow the engines (U.S.), you know that Google is huge (48 -60%), Yahoo! is big (25-30%), Live is small (9-12%), Ask and AOL are smaller (about 5%) and the rest are tiny.

Okay, I didn’t throw out the actual numbers. That’s because the true measure of the search engines’ strength is how they perform for your program. It’s the relative ROI that is important to you. So, keep an eye for any major changes in the engine share, but don’t ever lose site of your results. (SeachEngineWatch is a good place for the numbers.)

Look at some of the smaller players. There is a difference between share and efficiency. I have seen some small players come in with decent ROI (better than the big three). While they are not individually scalable, in aggregate, they can add net program efficiency.

For example, if a keyword on Google has a CPC of $0.90 and converts at 25%, your cost per conversion is $3.60. If, on MIVA, your conversion is only 5%, but your CPC is $0.10, then your cost per conversion is $2.00. Now, Google may get you 10,000 conversions and the aggregate of the others may only be 100, but at a 45% discount, these can be very efficient.

The key here is measurement. If you can not track to the conversion, these sites can just as easily be money losers. If they only convert at 1%, then your cost per conversion jumps to $10. While this is true with the big engines, most search marketers pay attention to them. The big ones are the fire hoses that we turn off right away vs the little ones which are tiny drips that we let go too long. Good metrics helps prevent this mistake on either end of the spectrum.

Until now, I have not touched on click fraud. I don’t discount it by any means. But, to me it is a different, though related, discussion. If you have your metrics in place, even if there is click fraud, you’ll be able to mitigate it, or even profit in spite of it. It is difficult to continue a program where you believe you are the victim of click fraud. But, if it meets your ROI, continue to program and address the click fraud issue later.