Search: Local
Publishing: Christian Science Monitor Saves Trees, Moves to Online Revenue Model
|
Written By Noah Mallin | October 28, 2008 | Share This
|
|
It’s amazing how a little economic crisis can clarify people’s thinking and give all kinds of already prevailing trends a hard nudge forward. Take the newspaper industry, which has been grappling for years with how to deal with declining readership offline and online revenues that stubbornly resist moving towards a level that will float their expensive newsroom operations. While many traditional newspaper publishers are responding with layoffs the venerable Christian Science Monitor is throwing in the daily newspaper towel entirely.
SEM: Using Google Insights to Explore Old Media’s Geographic Reach
|
Written By Noah Mallin | August 12, 2008 | Share This
|
|
Newspapers by their nature tend to be local. Their location is even part of their name in most cases. Even so, certain newspapers are so influential that their reach extends beyond their location to other parts of the country and even the world. I thought it would be interesting to see how this might be reflected in Google’s dandy new toy, Insights for Search.
I picked four of the best know daily papers in the United States, The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the Miami Herald. As a ringer I added USA Today to see if a paper that bills itself as a national one really has national scope online. The timeframe was calendar year 2007.
SEM: Searching to Spend — Getting Online Can Get it Done Offline for Retailers
|
Written By Noah Mallin | July 22, 2008 | Share This
|
|
The popular conception of search marketing from a sales objective is a customer on a search result page clicking your link (paid or organic) and following it to an online point of purchase. There ain’t nothing wrong with that, as Amazon.com and eBay can attest. Brick and mortar stores have also used this model to grow an online component to their offline biz as well (Barnes and Noble is an example of this). An interesting post today from Nielsen Online’s Analyst Blog (which relates to another post from a few weeks ago) suggests that for offline retailers this is only part of the story.
SEM: Spying Scientists Stumble on Site Stickiness Standards
|
Written By Noah Mallin | June 5, 2008 | Share This
|
|
Hey, You, Get Off of My Name!
|
Written By Noah Mallin | June 3, 2008 | Share This
|
|
Bo Diddley, the pioneering rock n’ roll genius who died yesterday knew a thing or two about marketing and branding. Consider this: Ellas McDaniel re-dubbed himself as Diddley, had his first hit record with a song called “Bo Diddley” (the first of many times he would work his new name into a song title and lyrics) and made sure that the ubiquitous shave-and-a-haircut beat that was his trademark was referred to far and wide as “the Bo Diddley beat.” The man was SEO before there were any E’s to S.
Now imagine if you popped Diddley’s name into your search engine of choice and the results page featured a big ol’ ad that said “Bo Diddley Music” with a click- through to Chuck Berry’s site. Though Search Engines frown on this when the name is under copyright it does happen and in some cases is part of an overall marketing strategy.
Today’s Wall Street Journal has an article that focuses on the naughty folks who contravene the search engine’s ban on using another company’s copyrighted name as a paid keyword. The accompanying vid however deals with a slightly different and murkier issue, perhaps because author Emily Steel is talking to someone from a company that hopes to get paid for protecting your good brand name from being sullied. Here it is in living Murdoch-vision:
The general practice of buying up terms, phrases and even copyrighted names associated with a competitor is not uncommon, though the effectiveness is open to debate. If your brand is the victim of this kind of keyword jacking it’s a terrible scourge. On the other hand, if your brand has used it to checkmate a rival’s campaign, it’s flippin’ genius.
A good example of this can be found in Reprise Media’s own typically thorough (excuse us while we plug ourselves) Superbowl Search Marketing Scorecard from this past February. CareerBuilder did a series of ads based on the theme of “Follow your heart.” The clever folks at Monster.com bought that phrase and other similar ones and even integrated it into their online ad copy. No doubt many job seekers who may not have been aware of Monster found that they offered an alternative to CareerBuilder that met their needs.
Whether or not you are using someone else’s brand name or campaign is maybe less important than why you’re doing it, and where you’re sending people once they click. Sending a bunch of folks who are looking for Bo Diddley to the Chuck Berry product only works if the landing page you send them to doesn’t make them feel tricked and hostile. Sending them to a page that says “If you like Bo Diddley, check out Chuck Berry’s CD” and includes the ability to sample some tunes could actually create a positive experience for the user.
This also can have some bearing on the price advertisers pay for their ads. Most search engines incorporate landing page content into their quality score – the algorithm that is used to determine the price they’ll pay in the auction. In fact Google makes this very clear in their Landing Page and Site Quality Guidelines for AdWords. If your landing page doesn’t feature content that’s relevant to the keyword you’re buying? Prices will go up and in some cases your ads will even be deactivated. Not the kind of ROI most advertisers want.
Ultimately, the question of whether or not companies should be able to buy competitive brand terms comes down to intent – deception vs. comparison:
- Brand comparison is a crucial and age-old tool in the marketing toolbox – saying “if you like x, try Y” creates instant context for people. Think classic campaigns like the Pepsi Challenge and Snapple’s “We’re number 2.”
- But when users click on an ad, they’re expecting relevant content on the other end. If you don’t deliver, you may end up damaging your relationship with your user, and that kind of negative impression can be very hard to erase.
Google Maps Coming to Gas Stations
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | November 7, 2007 | Share This
|
|
Lost drivers will soon be able to access Google driving directions, maps, and local listings at gas stations across the United States, the AP reported today. Surprisingly, this won’t be monetized by Google with advertising but it will allow the gas stations to make money by allowing coupons from local merchants (and it looks like the big G’s not taking a cut of that, either):
Greensboro, N.C.-based Gilbarco initially will offer the service at about 3,500 gas pumps and expand based on retailer demand. Unlike most of Google’s services, this one won’t include ads to bring in income. But participating retailers will be able to make extra money from other merchants that offer coupons on the service.
Users can’t yet type in addresses but will be able to browse maps for landmarks on a simple interface (below).
Greg Sterling at Search Engine Land points out that this development is likely one of many possible Google-kiosk iterations to come (there’s potential for this concept in shopping malls, for instance, or in affluent, high-traffic urban areas, like New York’s Union Square). In any case, it’s another entry in Google’s bid to be everywhere. Karen Roter Davis, a principal business development manager for Google, called the gas pump Google maps “a Googley, more stealthy way of getting directions.”
Live Search 411 Beats Goog-411
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | October 16, 2007 | Share This
|
|
Microsoft today announced its final updates to Live Search. They include better maps/directions and the introduction of Live Search 411, which is intended to compete directly with Google’s 411 service.
I’ve just done a quick, unscientific field test of both free services, searching first for pizza delivery and then for party supply stores in my area. Neither services are perfect, but surprisingly, Live Search 411 blew Goog-411 out of the water.
Though Live Search 411 (1-800-CALL-411) didn’t understand “pizza delivery” at first and gave me courier services instead, a second try garnered three local pizza joints, with the option to hear more. Goog-411 (1-800-GOOG-411) talked through eight listings, giving me garbled street names with each one, which was tough to sit through. Moreover, about half of Google’s top eight results were Pizza Huts. That speaks well of Pizza Hut’s SEO work and their market saturation of my neighborhood, but I wish Goog-411 was smart enough to give me more unique options, rather than different locations for the same company. I don’t really need to know about all four Pizza Huts around if I’m getting my pie delivered anyway. So Live Search wins for “pizza delivery.”
Searching for party supply stores was similar; Live Search 411 was faster because of the three-business listing with the option to hear more, and Google cycled through too many options, again garbling their names and locations. But ultimately, Goog-411 tanked this round because their results included a psychic, which is definitely not a relevant result.
For all results, Google will connect you, text you the info, or send you a map. Live Search connects or texts you, and gives you the really useful option to text the details to someone else as well. Live Search also features a far more professional-sounding voice (apologies to the Googler whose voices was used for Goog-411), and spells things out when it can’t pronounce them, both of which make for a better user experience. Finally, when you call Live Search, saying “other services” after the city name brings you info on weather, movies, travel, and traffic maps - all common searches for which Goog-411 does not yet (as far as I can tell) have easy shortcuts. Trying to search for “movie times” or “movie listings” on Goog-411 was futile.
So while both Live Search 411 and Goog-411 are in their infancy, and Live Search has likely learned some things by watching Google, the number I’ll be saving on my phone for now will be that of Live Search 411.
Google Local Search in BMWs
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | September 21, 2007 | Share This
|
|
BMW is introducing “Google By Car,” local search functionality, to its models. Not surprisingly, it sounds very intuitively integrated into the dashboard navigation system. From myTELUS:
The German luxury carmaker is now the only automobile manufacturer in the world to offer Google local search in their cars. The search function will allow drivers to look for local information anywhere in Germany- powered by the worlds most powerful search engine. Results are displayed with address, phone number and distance, and upon finding what they’re looking for, the driver can transfer the coordinates into their car’s navigation system and mobile phone at the touch of a button.
Only German drivers will have get Google for now, but here’s hoping U.S. models and other manufacturers follow suit soon. (via Marketing Pilgrim.)
Google Adds My Maps
|
Written By Kate Zimmermann | April 5, 2007 | Share This
|
|
Google’s newest mapping tool, My Maps, lets users create their own maps with a seamless drag-and-drop interface. Maps can contain placemarks, lines, or blocked areas, and can be customized with descriptive texts, embedded links, photos, and videos. Users can share maps by creating a unique hyperlink, make them public or unlisted, and can open maps in Google Earth.
What My Maps doesn’t have is a searchable database of everyone’s public maps. I tried searching Google and Google Maps for some of the map samples created by Google employees, but came up with nothing. There’s also no way to mark off distances - as I was creating my River to River Running Map for NYC, that was pretty frustrating.
Overall, however, this is a slick tool - and reminds me of some parting advice offered by Safa Rashtchy in his last Silk Road report:
“Many web applications and services are still too complicated for the average users…It’s easy for many companies to forget that most Americans are not web-savvy. The 50 million baby boomer generation is the largest single group online and they did not grow up with computers, let alone the Internet.”
The companies that can resolve this issue with simpler website design, he says, “will experience much higher growth rates and excess benefits.” My Maps does a really good job of creating a simple user interface that fluidly integrates with Google’s other services . GigaOM calls this the “yahooification of Google“, but I disagree - the sensibility of My Maps comes from something uniquely Google.
Further Reading:
- Google My Maps: Mashups for the Masses (Search Engine Land)
- Google Launches My Maps (O’Reilly Radar)
- My Maps - New Google Maps Update Supports Google Earth Features
The Big Search Quesions for 2007
|
Written By Kate Zimmermann | December 20, 2006 | Share This
|
|
Google Competition
Does Google really have 70% market share? According to Rich Skrenta they do, and according to Internet Outsider, that’s damn scary. As Google continues to refine its service offerings and expand into new search territory, Industry analysts are increasingly wondering why the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place engines are falling so pitifully behind. Searchviews took a look at what other analysts have proposed for 2007, and compiled a summary of what could happen. Most of these are based on multiple complex factors and are wildly speculative… but… What if?
What If Ask Was A “Swing State”?
Intro: Originally proposed by David Kirkpatrick, some analysts think that Yahoo could “catch” Google if it bands together with other engines - most notably, Microsoft. In that scenario, Ask.com becomes the “swing” engine that would either make or help Yahoo break Google.
The Scenario: Microsoft and Yahoo merge, but still hold only 30% market share against Google’s 60%. Though Ask accounts for only 2% of its traffic, the IAC’s assets plus traffic funneled from Lycos and Infospace gives Ask control over the remaining 10% of the search market.
The Crucial Move: Ask.com signs with Yahoo/MSN
The Result: Yahoo/MSN close the gap on Google
The Big Question: Is a Microsoft/Yahoo merger really ever going to happen?
What If Microsoft Moved Everything Online?
Intro: Microsoft isn’t going to win the search market by persuading people over to live.com - or any homepage that isn’t google. But, they’ve got a wealth of existing assets offline that are a) easily integrated with search, and b) already have an enormous user base. So, imagine that…
The Scenario: Microsoft integrates the new Live.com with their other assets.
The Crucial Move: All assets are leveraged together: Office 2007, Vista, XBOX go fully online so that they’re sharable, searchable, integrated with live.com and accessible through any internet connection.
The Result: Microsoft becomes synonymous with enterprise content management, completes the migration of gaming from the client-side to the cloud. Integrated assets + Deep pockets = search winner in all areas off the live.com homepage.
The Big Question: Search is about simplicity - Can Microsoft make it all simple enough to use?
What If Yahoo Made A Comeback?
Intro: As the definitive #2 engine, Yahoo has a lot “up and coming” that could tip market share back in its favor. In contrast with the other runners up, Yahoo doesn’t have to fight for users - they just need a way to properly monetize existing search assets.
The Scenario: Panama is finally out in full, Yahoo re-org tightens operations and consolidates assets, monetizes qualified traffic by paying attention to behavioral data.
The Crucial Move: YHOO sees the black, encourages long awaited surge of investors.
The Result: Yahoo dominates Local/Social/Vertical search traffic.
The Big Question: Can Yahoo make their advertising products attractive enough to lure distribution clients away from Google?
What If Baidu Entered the Market?
Intro: None of the engines, Google included, has yet tackled mobile search in the US (at least, not with a compelling enough offer to lead its mainstream adoption). Could mobile search be an Asian import?
The Scenario: Baidu enters US Search market with unbeatable mobile search technology that has been groomed in Asian market for 3+ years.
The Crucial Move: Baidu signs with at least 2 major US carriers (Verizon and Cingular?), makes mobile web access affordable with ad revenue subsidies.
The Result: Baidu creates mobile search & mobile commerce empire
The Big Question: Is the US market ready, from either a technology or consumer-knowledge standpoint, to widely adopt the mobile internet?
Intro: Google shows no signs of curbing expansion, and history shows that Google keeps on growing even when we all think it’s capped. So, let’s say…
The Scenario: Google continues to move into new markets (think: Google checkout, Google Phone), perfect services in emerging markets (Video, Maps etc), and attract more of the search market.
The Crucial Move: Google successfully takes auction model to offline markets (already started with Google Radio).
The Result: Google = Advertising
The Big Question: Google is good at search, has built billions on search and has extended to every corner of the internet…. can they figure out how to make a profit on anything other than search?
If you have thoughts on the plausibility (or implausibility) of any of these scenarios - or something entirely new - we’d love to hear your opinion.