Editor's View

Brand perception

Platform: Internet | Author: Will Cooper | Source: nma.co.uk | Published: 16.05.08

Email article | Printer Friendly

How search can be used for branding is one of those eternal questions that, up until recently, hasn't really been answered effectively.

We all know how good search is as an acquisition tool, but to quantify how it affects the overall perception of your brand is an issue that vexes just about every brand manager.

We've seen movements in recent months by Microsoft and Google...

Article continues below

... to look at ways to finally deliver meaningful analysis of this, however it's not going to be something that's going to be answered quickly.

Actually appearing in the search results is, of course, just one aspect of the branding process. Getting that right, though, has become more complicated in recent weeks.

Google's trademark decision has twisted things; brand protection has become a much more important part of the process.

With rivals bidding against your terms, your shop's entrance is, if not picketed, certainly more crowded.

However, one aspect of this has emerged this week that takes this further - extended broadmatch.

As any user of AdWords knows, Google's broadmatch tool serves ads it believes to be relevant to the search term, whether or not the advertiser has bid on it.

So, for a very basic example, if you're a shoe retailer bidding on "flip-flops" Google might serve you against "sandals" even if you haven't bid on it because Google thinks it will lead to a conversion.

This, though, now appears to be happening to trademark terms, with companies appearing on rivals' terms even though they haven't bid on them.

The message here is that it seems that brands and SEMs need to be more vigilant than ever - you can retrospectively ask to be removed from such terms, as well as add negative keywords to stop you from appearing against them in the first place, but now this has become even more important.

As mentioned last week, the overall impact of Google's decision doesn't seem as huge as was once expected perhaps from a financial point of view, but certainly workloads have be pushed harder than ever.

Grey area - 16.05.08

If the build up was to be believed, Google should have ruined quite a few businesses this week.

In the month between the search giant announcing it was to lift trademark-bidding restrictions on paid search marketing and the policy coming into effect last Monday, there has been much speculation that the move will cost brands millions.

But now we're a week in, is that in fact the case? Not quite, it seems.

There are areas where trademark bidding is undoubtedly going crazy, most notably financial services and travel, but there are others, such as retail, where it appears to be business as usual.

Only time will tell, but perhaps this isn't the business-changing decision it's been hyped up to be.

Nevertheless, there do seem to be quite a few brands out there that aren't happy and are threatening legal action.

Again, though, would Google have really made such a decision had its lawyers not been 100% confident that it was above board?

Perhaps more of a concern is the fact that not only are some brands apparently entering in to gentlemen's agreements with their competitors to not bid on each other's terms, but that this might not be legal.

It's very much a grey area, according to lawyers, but the legal terminology of the 1998 Competition Act seems to suggest that these are not the type of agreements companies should be getting into.

Of course, this is something NMA will continue to cover in-depth, as it's clear this will continue to have an impact.

Late to the party - 02.05.08

Live Search is back, and that can only be a good thing.

Microsoft's trials and tribulations with search are well-documented, and it's no big secret that the tech giant has been frustrated that despite the enormous resources it has at its disposal, Google has managed to get so far ahead.

The revamped Live Search includes all the things you would expect, such as improved image results, a better user interface, increased Multimap integration, a more focused mobile offering, and so on, while Ad Center has become more advertiser-friendly.

The Live Search experience, however thought of within the industry, isn't that bad at all, and everyone wants more competition in the sector.

So the time-old question remains - how is Microsoft going to drive volumes?

Last year Marc Bresseel, regional sales director for EMEA at Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions (MDAS), told NMA that the company wanted the incredibly loyal user base it has across MSN to effectively use Live Search as their default engine.

Similarly, the company is increasingly incentivising users with the lure of competitions and prizes as they search.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it may well build the brand, but will it be able to hold on to new users in the long-term?

Google is the default search engine for so many people. While some might enjoy the uniqueness of being able to win stuff in the short-term on another engine, will this last?

One thing that always strikes me is that Microsoft shouldn't have been in this situation in the first place. This is a company that came in late to a game that it could have done so well in had it been as pragmatic as its contemporaries.

Microsoft clearly want to be a major player, and the inevitable Yahoo! deal may well be the catalyst, but there's a long way to go.

Growing pains - 25.04.08

So, the search market is still healthy after all. Panic over.

Yahoo! this week posted better-than-expected Q1 results as it continued its fight against Microsoft (or at least its fight to up Microsoft's bid), while Google also beat market expectations with its Q1 results.

Of course, no-one was really worried that either company would announce anything but positive results, were they? Online advertising is still growing at a ridiculous rate, with search central to that.

This is again highlighted in NMA's Marketing Services Guide 2008, out with this week's issue.

Designed as a companion to NMA's Top 100 Interactive Agencies guide, but for the specialists, it once again shows not just the number of agencies out there that provide search offerings, but also the number that are generating considerable turnover in the process.

Almost inevitably, the list was headed the The Search Works, Latitude and Bigmouthmedia respectively, with strong performances by newer players such as Steak and VCCP Search.

Almost all had seen revenues up significantly year-on-year, and staff numbers are also swelling.

However, things are set to change this year. First, Google's decision to allow brand name bidding from 5 May could see agencies work harder than ever, while later in the year we'll see Google also drop its agency remuneration scheme - one that some agencies have relied on to keep themselves ticking over.

I don't envisage too much change to next year's list - in fact, we might see more agencies turning to search - but I'll predict now that some players will find the next 12 months tougher than ever.

Challenging times - 18.04.08

It seems Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft are embroiled in a taunting match of the likes not seen since Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Last week it was revealed that Yahoo! was to let Google serve AdWords ads on 3% of its network, but it appears that this has gone so successfully that it now wants to take things further.

Reports suggest that Yahoo! is seriously considering using new best friend Google as its search provider, sticking two fingers up at Microsoft's advances.

It's as if Yahoo! has taken up the position of the John Cleese's French taunter, with Google as its Holy Grail and Microsoft as the marauding King Arthur and his knights.

What this really implies is that Yahoo!'s finally seen what most other people already know: that when compared directly against each other, Google's AdWords is a better proposition than Yahoo!'s Panama.

Microsoft's next move will surely be to go direct to Yahoo! shareholders - indeed, the three weeks Steve Ballmer gave Yahoo! to accept the offer is almost up.

But now shareholders might have seen that the future lies with Google, and, of course, which of Google and Microsoft has a track record with search?

Does it make sense for Yahoo! to do this? I suppose so, if it wants to improve its search offering, as Google is more likely to be able to do this than Microsoft.

And will this mean that Yahoo! and Google will share information about other aspects of their businesses?

We wrote in NMA this week that Google is pushing its content network hard this year, and I'm sure Yahoo!'s expertise with behavioural targeting would be an attractive proposition.

Google is desperate to squeeze revenues from every part of its business, and it will absolutely generate more revenues from working with Yahoo! as well.

Google's already got its hands on DoubleClick, so what kind of uproar will there be if a deal with Yahoo! allows it access to Yahoo!'s Blue Lithium?

Still, it's a drama that's continuing to throw up surprises, but, of course, will get much more entertaining when someone catapults a cow over the battlements at Steve Ballmer.

Life partner? - 11.04.08

So, Yahoo! is allowing Google ads to appear on its own real estate - kind of inevitable really.

At least, it is in context of what is fast becoming the most entertaining takeover in recent times.

The Microsoft-Yahoo! deal came as a shock when it was first proposed and it's captivated the industry.

The deal that Google and Yahoo! has signed will see Google AdSense ads appearing alongside some of Yahoo!'s content in the US, in a move that Yahoo! has said continues its strategy of continual experimentation for ad models.

Certainly it seems that Yahoo! is conscious that in order to continue to position itself as a leading player, it must develop partnerships with its competitors - whether it be Google, as now, or, in the long term, probably Microsoft.

Here in the UK, the fallout from Google's decision on trademarking continues. We reported in NMA this week on comments from brands rethinking their search strategies, but one element that's not really been reported is how this affects the IPA and IAB search groups.

Both have been working hard with the search engines to collate all information on trademarking and other standards, and it seems that Google, with a flick of a switch, has thrown everything into disarray.

A statement released today by the IPA touches on the above point, and also questions why Google has made the change here in the UK and Ireland but not in Europe.

The underlying feeling, though, is that this has completely undermined all the work they've done - as well as undermining the trade bodies themselves.

However, what mustn't be forgotten is that this is also an opportunity for some brands - aggregators like MoneySupermarket or Confused.com - to boost their presence on Google, and many SEMs I know are already expecting more work off the back of it.

Finally, thanks to everyone who came to the NMA Search Social on Wednesday.

It's still early days for the event, and so we appreciate the support. There'll be another one in the summer.

Search over style - 04.04.08

Newspapers are a great illustration of the way search is changing established business practices.

The Times, for example, employs a search editor, while other titles that are fully integrated, such as The Daily Telegraph, recognise that optimising for search engines is imperative for bringing in new readers.

A feature in this week's NMA explains the problems that tabloids are currently facing, as their headlines, puntastic as they might be, aren't exactly Google or Yahoo! friendly.

The Sun, for example, will almost always refer to Paul McCartney as 'Macca', but most people will search for 'McCartney', therefore the broadsheets, which nine times out of ten won't abbreviate his name for their copy, would be more likely to appear high in the search results.

So if they're not going to be picked up prominently in natural search results, will tabloids change their style guides to suit the search engines?

Highly unlikely, so what then comes in to play is good use of paid search.

Going back to the comment I raised a few weeks ago, businesses should be proactively using search as a PR tool, attracting people to their content when they might not necessarily have been looking for it.

The Independent appointed Latitude this week as its search engine, citing that very point - to invest in search as a key reader acquisition tool.

Some newspapers have been proactively doing this for years, but its noticeable that only the same names come up time and again - surely it should be part-and-parcel for any publishing house these days?

Against the grain - 28.03.08

Trademarking - every search specialist's favourite word. It's something that's been a bone of contention from day one. It's a grey area that sometimes makes it feel like each search engine just follows its own policy.

SEMs and brands, as such, have never been entirely sure exactly where they stood. The basic theory, at least here in the UK, is that you own your brand terms, unless you allow some leeway for others (usually your affiliate partners) to bid alongside you.

Google, though, appears to have other ideas. Its secondary search box, introduced earlier in the month allowing people to search sites from within Google's natural results, has put a tiger amongst the pigeons (NMA 27.03.08).

Results, displayed on a Google results page rather than a results page on the site you're searching, sometimes serve third-party PPC ads directly against branded terms.

So, for example, when searching House of Fraser for TVs, I might be served an ad for TVs at a rival site.

This isn't what I want. I want what House of Fraser sells.

Google, and search engines as a whole, claims that all results - both natural and paid - are aligned to relevance. Therefore I only get served the most relevant results to what I'm searching for.

But if we're moving towards a more semantic, contextual web that understands the idiosyncrasies of language then surely if I'm searching within House of Fraser then all I want is House of Fraser's results?

It's a secondary monetary tier for Google, as succinctly said by Latitude's Richard Gregory, but also it goes against the whole concept of the web accurately serving what you want.

This one will run and run.

Come clean, Google - 28.03.08

Last weekend Google supremo Eric Schmidt suggested that Microsoft’s proposed takeover of Yahoo! could be “bad for the internet”, apparently without any hint of irony. He hinted that the superpower created from the merger could gain control over an unsettling amount of information online.

However, beyond the obvious irony that Google itself has been criticised of similar in the past (GoogleClick, anyone?), maybe Schmidt was trying to deflect attention away from a brewing storm around his company. The search giant is constantly rolling out new products, but recent changes to its results pages are starting to properly demonstrate its apparent control of information.

One example is the introduction of a secondary search box within its natural listings, allowing you to search the content of a site from Google itself. So much for trying to get users away from Google as quickly as they arrive, a mantra commonly recited by Google employees.

Similarly, Google products and services are increasingly appearing top of natural listings, again directing users to a Google-run site. Video links, for example, always show YouTube clips.

I don’t necessarily think the issue here is Google’s actions, more it’s continual denial that it’s anything other than a technology company. If Google formally admitted it was a media company and that of course it wants people to use its products before others, I think a lot of the criticism it receives might die down.

Yahoo!, for example, doesn’t hide the fact that it wants people to use Yahoo-owned services, about which you hear little criticism.

There’ll be more on this in next week’s NMA, particularly on the secondary search box. But for now things, it seems, are coming to a head.

Yahoo! goes abroad - 14.03.08

Switzerland. Home of cheese, chocolates, watches and now Yahoo!.

In a move that made everyone check their calendars just to see if it wasn't 1 April, that's apparently going to be the new European HQ of Jerry Yang's crew.

London-based employees are now contemplating whether they want to move from Holborn to Lake Geneva. I'm sure Google, down in Victoria, is anticipating a few more HR enquiries than usual.

The move to the world's most famous neutral zone, barring the NMA office, comes in the same week as Rupert Murdoch's decision to not stand in the way of Microsoft's acquisition of Yahoo!.

Murdoch, it seems, had been touted as the white knight who would fend off Microsoft's advances, but even he's realised that Bill Gate's arsenal goes a bit further than perhaps his own.

So now Yahoo! has lost one of its defences and is seemingly heading towards the inevitable. There have been talks about some kind of deal with AOL, but considering it's just spent £417m on Bebo, perhaps Yahoo! isn't a high priority conversation.

Elsewhere, and slipping in under the radar, the GoogleClick acquisition finally went through.

What this means for the industry is an old subject, discussed at length last year, but it's interesting that Google has already rolled out a free ad serving proposition. The question now is when, rather than if, DoubleClick ad serving will become free as well.

And when that happens, it puts further pressure on Microsoft with Atlas. Or will Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer be too tied up with fondue to notice?

Don’t Ask - 07.03.08

What's the point of Ask.com these days? Well, it seems Ask itself isn't entirely sure.

This week has seen rumours of its transformation from a search engine to - of all things - a women's portal. The speculation was quashed by Ask, although it did hint it would focus on providing results for specific consumer demographic verticals.

This is only a year after it completely changed the way it displayed results and embarked on its most ambitious, and controversial, marketing campaign to date.

I like Ask.com, or at least I like the fact that it realised it needed to shake things up - not just for itself, but for the industry as a whole.

It was one of those situations where everyone was talking about multimedia results, but not delivering them. Ask, on the other, went out and did it.

Of course, its parade was well and truly rained on by Google, announcing Universal Search in the weeks before Ask rolled out Ask 3D.

Nevertheless, Ask showed that it could work. I for one have used Ask.com more regularly this year. Okay, the results might not be as good as some of its rivals, but it made searching for information interesting - rather than simply a means to an end.

Now it seems that Ask is changing its path once again. Although it's denied it's pulling out of the search market completely, it has suggested that it would tweak its algorithm to cater for key demographics.

I just don't know whether this will work. Niche search engines are, well, niche, but Ask probably isn't going that far. So what is its current direction?

Hopefully, incoming CEO Jim Safka has the answers as, sadly, it seems that it just doesn't quite know what it stands for anymore. Which is a shame.

This is a space crying out for competition, and I so I hope that Ask doesn't stray too far from its current path.

Ethical attack - 29.02.08

Marks & Spencer was this week cowering in the face of a hostile online attack from Unite, the UK’s largest trade union, over its ethical trading policies. At least, that was the plan.

Unite said it was buying keywords including ‘M&S’ and ‘Marks & Spencer’ in order to direct people to a site highlighting the retailer’s treatment of migrant workers.

This worked well for a couple of hours, until Google pulled the ads in line with its trademark policy.

This brings up two interesting conversations: first, the age-old issue of trademark protection within search marketing; and second, the use of search as a negative PR tactic.

The latter is the flipside to the approach increasingly being taken by search specialists, such as VCCP with Search Relations, to really use the medium as a tool to inform or, indeed, fire-fight when you’re in a sticky patch.

As much as people talk about it, I still haven’t seen any really good examples of how this is being utilised on a regular basis.

Today, for example, might it be wise for newspapers to be buying Prince Harry-related keywords to lead people to explanations as to why editors decided not to report the presence of 2nd Lt Wales in Helmand Province?

To me, it seems like a great way of really informing a questioning public, but is it actually happening?

Unite was more successful in the rest of its PR blitz, with the actual search aspect being something of an anti-climax.

Nevertheless, I’m sure M&S is already quaking in its boots in anticipation of a online assault from people not happy about having to fork out 5p for a plastic bag.

Content counts - 22.02.08

The prevailing wisdom is that brands should produce multimedia content in order to provide compelling user experiences online. But will it soon be the case that they have to do so to remain visible in search results?

Search engines, as with Google’s Universal Search and Ask’s Ask 3D, are increasingly displaying multimedia results in their natural listings. Is this putting more pressure on brands to develop extra content like blogs and videos?

This was one of the subjects brought up regularly during conversations at Search Engine Strategies (SES) London this week - what pressures are being put on advertisers and SEO specialists to make sure they remain above the fold?

I’ve always liked the concept of blended search, as it’s being increasingly termed, but the conversation has moved from understanding what it is to how to make the most out of every bit of content - video, audio, images - a brand has.

There’s now a feeling that blended search is posing tough questions for some brands, a point raised in today’s NMA Podcast.

If you’re promoting a Hollywood blockbuster, naturally you’ll have videos, images and great online content, with a budget the size of a mountain. But is it the same for, say, B&Q?

Is this creating a division between those advertisers that have the resources and those that don’t? Does every advertiser need to have a blog, a video, multiple images, in order to remain visible?

I think once Universal Search results become more common, a lot of brands will suddenly realise SEO just got that little bit harder.

Simplicity scores - 15.02.08

Google's relentless rise to search engine pole position has been for a number of reasons: great technology, good leadership, ruthlessness, timing and, of course, a touch of luck.

It's also been because of its simplicity. Google's search page is as basic as pages come, and the cleanliness of its results page is now very much the model for search engines that have followed.

Now though, things are set to change. Google VP of search Marissa Mayer yesterday revealed that the company was testing the placing of video ads within paid search results.

Initially all a user will see is a + sign next to a paid result which, when clicked, would play a corresponding video ad. However, Mayer also said that thumbnails might also be tested in the near future.

Last year Google announced it was changing the way in which it was displaying organic results, Universal Search, but that was all about displaying multimedia results in the natural search column.

This, though, is something wholly different: a major alteration to one of the most successful revenue models of recent times.

Advertisers and agencies are always calling for increased inventory, and this will indeed provide this, in the hottest piece of real estate online.

Of course, those advertisers that don't do video advertising but rely on traditional text ads may question the impact video will have on their allocation of this prime real estate.

Regardless, it's a real sign that search is changing. And given the focus on Microhoo! at the moment, perhaps Google thinks it can let a few things slip out while people are looking the other way?

Yahoo! options - 08.02.08

A week on and no-one's any closer to knowing the eventual outcome of the Microsoft - Yahoo! deal.

If reports are to be believed, the latter appears to be running around, boarding up all the doors and windows while frantically phoning its mates - and indeed even some enemies - for help in order to keep the Microsoft wolves at bay for a little longer.

"Our board is thoughtfully evaluating a wide range of potential strategic alternatives in what is a complex and evolving landscape," said Yahoo! CEO Jerry Yang in a letter to his employees.

This evaluation includes a market research initiative that includes talking to industry commentators and journalists, including NMA, on how the Yahoo! brand is perceived.

At the same time Microsoft investors, it seems, are perhaps not quite as encouraged by the proposed deal as people initially thought.

It emerged this morning that Microsoft's share price had fallen almost $40bn (£20.9bn) to a mere $260bn (£135.6bn) in the week since the hostile takeover bid was announced.

One of NMA's two stories on the deal this week looked at the ad platforms that each has recently brought on to the market - Panama and AdCenter - and how the future of each might pan out.

Search specialists had views on each, with Panama coming out on top for many. What was interesting, though, was how so many observers believed that neither was anywhere as advanced as Google's - indeed, Duncan Parry from Steak Media said they were both 'generations' behind AdWords.

So, merging the two search properties for a combined approach (which, according to ComScore, would still only account for a quarter of Google's global search traffic) is all well and good, but what if it's got a dodgy backbone?

AdCenter and Panama both seem to be adequate platforms, but neither has that extra edge - and that's what the search industry wants. Maybe scrapping the two and starting from scratch is the only way forward, but by the time it comes on the market, where will Google be?

Giants of search - 01.02.08

As the saying goes, two heads are better than one. The question is, what happens if they're Jerry Yang and Steve Ballmer?

It's clear now that the latter is hoping, with the help of a mere $44.6bn (£22.4bn), that pooling the resources of his Microsoft with Yang's Yahoo! will be the catalyst to stopping the Google money train.

Already there have been plenty of analyses and discussions online about when a combined Micrahoo search engine will be unveiled, but is it as straightforward as that?

Yes, a joint search engine is possible and, to be honest, probable in the long term, but if the deal goes through the companies would most likely focus on more winnable battlegrounds such as display and mobile.

Combining their resources to attack Google's advance on display would make sense: improving their display networks - something Yahoo! has already begun with discount pricing models revealed by NMA last year - drives volumes, which builds trust and therefore drive numbers using their search offerings.

Similarly, both companies have invested considerably in their search and ad platforms in the past two years.

Both Microsoft's AdCenter and Yahoo!'s Panama are designed to be the foundation of their online ad businesses, with the latter described to NMA last year by Yahoo!'s VP of Search Tim Cadogan as "certainly one of the largest projects Yahoo! has ever undertaken." (NMA 29.03.07)

So would they now pool their resources to create AdPanama or a combined search engine? Unlikely in the short term.

Nevertheless, it's the tone in which Microsoft's Steve Ballmer stated his intentions that is perhaps most interesting, saying that online advertising is "increasingly dominated by one player."

This is the first time either Yahoo! or Microsoft has been so explicit in their desire to beat Google.

Whatever happens, the outlook for 2008 looks more exciting than ever, and if this proposed deal is anything to go by, there most certainly will be blood.

AdCenter woes - 25.01.08

Let's face it, Microsoft's AdCenter hasn't exactly had the smoothest of rides since it was rolled-out two years ago.

The technology giant was billing AdCenter as revolutionary - providing advertisers and media agencies with the most effective digital ad platform on the market.

One of the key AdCenter USPs was demographic targeting, Microsoft said that AdCenter allowed advertisers to target campaigns more specifically than any other platform, which would in turn drive conversion rates and ROI like never before.

All well and good, said advertisers and agencies, but what's the point when there's no traffic, especially in search? Microsoft was critcised for spending too much time selling the AdCenter dream, rather than making people use the applications it would send the ads to.

This week Google revealed that it was testing demographic targeting for AdSense, using anonymised user data sourced from partners within its content network.

The difference between Google's offering and AdCenter is that the former is targeting ads within its AdSense network, including YouTube and MySpace, and not its search product, but still it's a step towards it.

Previously, though, Google has said it was its algorithm, rather than demographic-targeting, that was the key to best-placed ads.

David Thacker, Google group product manager, told NMA's Nic Howell in November 2006: "We're betting on the intelligence and sophistication of our algorithm, rather than some sort of overlay of demographics that you see the other competitors in the market doing."

In fact, this isn't even the first time Google's tested demographic targeting, having two years ago revealed it was using ComScore panel data to help US advertisers target ads by gender, age and other demographic criteria.

How effective the new trials will be is another question, but the concern for Microsoft is surely now that what was once a unique aspect of its AdCenter platform is now being used by the number one player in the market.

It seems that things just got that little bit tougher for Microsoft.

On the front line - 18.01.08

Search agencies are on the front line of online marketing and often seem to get bombarded from two fronts.

Their clients want the best positioning on the search engines as quickly as possible, while the search engines, for the most part, want them to toe the party line.

And through this there still remains a stigma that they're purveyors of dark arts, using tricks, scams and illusions to hit that top spot, when for 99.9% of the industry this is not the case.

In this environment there's a lot more work being done by industry bodies including the IAB, IPA and DMA to provide more regulation on the sector.

This week's big search story in NMA focused on ABCe getting in on the act.

The metric body had worked with search agency Relevant Traffic to produce the first audit for SEMs, with a view to provide services for others in the future.

ABCe said that it provided assurance for prospective clients.

It was one of those stories that came from nowhere, but, on the face of it, made absolute sense. While it wasn't looking to judge whether practices were good or bad, it sought to provide independent confirmation that information given to clients was accurate.

Obviously, this is a story that NMA will be following up in next week's issue (24.01.08), but in the few days since first breaking the story it's become clear that this is something being welcomed by the majority of the industry as something that will help to instil trust.

It always seems strange that for a sector worth, according to the IAB, £1.17bn in the UK, well over half of all online ad spend, it is still perceived by some as a dark art.

So it's good news that the ABCE, IPA, DMA, IAB and the rest of the alphabet fraternity are getting involved with the search space. Despite the criticism about initial drafts of codes of conducts and charters that came out towards the end of last year, the more the industry bodies are involved, the quicker the suspicion could be dispelled.

Statement of intent - 14.01.08

When is a product launch more than simply a product launch? When it's a statement of intent.

The first joint TradeDoubler/Interactive Marketing Works project since the former bought the latter for £56m last summer was unveiled this week - TD Searchware 4.

While that in itself doesn't sound particularly earth-moving, when the timing of the announcement - which saw The Technology Works' leading BidBuddy pay-per-click client merged with TradeDoubler technology for the first time - is taken into consideration, it's a significant move.

Reason being, its launch came two weeks after Latitude, the number two UK search agency according to NMA's Marketing Services Guide behind IMW's The Search Works, concluded a management buyout.

The fight to be the number one UK search specialist is frantic, with all players - not just Latitude and The Search Works - claiming top spot. Meaning making the headlines is increasingly important.

Over the Christmas period the sector was left thinking about Latitude's ambiguous deal - one that is as similarly blurry as the BigMouthMedia/Global Media deal a year before - but the start of the year saw TradeDoubler's announcement once again make IMW front of mind.

So, the frantic race continues, and it won't stop with Latitude and IMW. A year of consolidation in 2007 saw deals involving companies such as Spannerworks, Green Cathedral and 24/7 Real Media, all of which now have extra cash to fuel their race.

Interestingly, that only leaves a handful of search-specific agencies still playing the courting game - or not, as they insist.

Of those, arguably Greenlight is the most high-profile. Despite the fact that CEO Warren Cowan is adamant the agency's not for sale, key wins and good work for clients including HMV, Handbag and Monarch Airlines as well as expanding UK and US offices surely makes them an attractive prospect.

And why shouldn't they sell/merge/whatever? Search is still the fastest growing digital sector, with the trade press very much obsessed with Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft - yes, IMW, at £56m, went for less than anticipated - but there are still plenty of investors out there with very deep pockets.