Editor's View
Shared results
Platform: Internet | Author: Will Cooper | Source: nma.co.uk | Published: 21.11.08
The black-box algorithms used by search engines to rank results have always been shrouded in mystery, with us users having little or no control over what we see.
This year, however, we've seen major moves for search to become more of a shared experience.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales' open-source, community-based Wikia Search was one of the most high-profile launches back in January, with human editing just as much
...... a part of the results as computer algorithms.
But yesterday Google pushed harder in to the community-driven approach by opening up Search Wiki, a way for iGoogle users to customise their search results.
When signed-in to iGoogle, buttons appear next to search results allowing you to edit, add notes and re-rank them to how you feel they should have appeared. Users can also delete any results they feel aren't relevant to the search.
While re-rankings are not shared with others, added notes are, pushing Google closer to being a true Wiki experience than it's ever been before and letting its users share opinions on the search results.
Google, as ever, is saying that it's aiming to provide the most accurate search experience for its users, and that however good its algorithm may be there's always room for individual improvements.
Google product manager Cedric Dupont and software engineer Corin Anderson said on the Google blog: "This new feature is an example of how search is becoming increasingly dynamic, giving people tools that make search even more useful to them in their daily lives."
But I always wonder how many people will actually use tools like this? Yes, we want to have the most accurate results served up, but isn't it the job of the search engine to decide what should be shown, not us?
Of course, fine-tuning always helps, but I'd be interested to see and know how many people take the time and effort to leave comments.
Paying its way - 14.11.08
Google's quest to monetise YouTube has always felt a bit like Wile E Coyote's attempts to catch Road Runner; lots of effort but no real success.
Indeed, last month at Mipcom in Cannes Chad Hurley, YouTube co-founder and CEO, said the company was experimenting with new ad formats all the time, giving the impression Google was currently providing ACME Corp with a lot of business.
However, in the past month the company appears to have hit on two ideas that look very promising.
The first was click-to-buy ads, a trial that sees ads appearing immediately below a YouTube video that link through to retail sites such as Amazon and iTunes where viewers can buy related products.
This week, though, was something that's arguably more significant - Sponsored Videos.
It's a direct replication of the ridiculously effective AdWords, but serving up video ads and commercials when users search YouTube rather than traditional text links.
One of the reasons YouTube has been so successful is that people do search for commercials on it, and so to allow brands to now generate extra revenues from that seems like perfect sense.
Likewise, the AdWords auction model is proven both for Google and its advertisers, and so the education process shouldn't be too tricky.
It's a US-only trial at the moment, as the majority of Google's usually are, but there's certainly an air of confidence around this one as already it's said it's looking at international roll-outs - not something Google says unless it's sure.
Coupled with the fact that it recently announced a raft of incentives, including agency commission, to get people using video ads here in the UK, it seems the monetisation pieces are finally falling into place.
Square one - 07.11.08
Yahoo HQ was probably the only place not setting off fireworks in the US on 5 November after its controversial search deal with Google was finally snubbed out.
While the rest of the country was celebrating President Elect Obama's victory, and here in the UK we were celebrating Bonfire Night, Yahoo was contemplating being back at square one.
But while the company may be in the same situation it was in prior to the original Microsoft takeover bid, realistically it's worse that than, especially for Jerry Yang.
In the nine months since the first offer was made he's had to fend off criticism from rogue shareholder Carl Icahn, who's now on the board of directors, and seen the company's stock slide.
Yesterday he made a come-and-get-us plea to Microsoft, but today's comments from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer suggest that a new takeover bid is about as likely as an Alta Vista comeback.
What Ballmer did say, though, was that a search deal might be in the offering. Neither company's have particularly heavyweight search businesses, so a teaming-up would seem like a logical step.
If Yang can orchestrate that on favourable terms with his shareholders and directors then he might be able to save his skin; search is still the part of the business both Yahoo and Microsoft appear to want to get right.
If he doesn't, though, his time must certainly be up, and what's the betting that Icahn's setting up a bonfire for him?
You had to be there - 31.10.08
When not trying to make deals with Yahoo, Microsoft and Google's main focus in search at the moment is all about branding.
nma has reported regularly this year on moves by both companies to provide advertisers with proof of how effective search can be as a branding tool.
Google was the first of the two to publicly demonstrate quantifiable results of this back in July, with research showing that exposure to a listing in the top paid position, with no organic listing on the page, increased purchase consideration by 20% (nma 10.07.08).
This week we ran a story showing that Microsoft is actively trying to drive this one step on by showing the branding power of paid search links that aren't clicked (nma 30.10.08).
At the moment it's a consultancy offering, but the company hopes to integrate it as a tool within its Engagement Mapping search analysis technology as part of its next update.
This, for me, is the most interesting aspect of search as a branding tool. We all know that being top of listings is brilliant, with evidence demonstrating the power of being number one in direct response campaigns.
But for those advertisers that aren't number one and don't get clicks there's never really been good evidence to show the benefits of merely appearing.
Clearly Microsoft and Google's moves are also to ensure more companies are spending on their platforms, but there's much to be applauded about their approach to show that not being clicked on can be a positive thing.
Second fiddle - 24.10.08
It's been another eventful week for Yahoo, with profits down drastically, the prospect of significant lay-offs and news of Google's increase in its share of search spend.
What's more, the fallout from Google's decision last week to overturn its gambling ban looks likely to hit Yahoo further, with major players in the space saying that they'll now be concentrating their efforts on Google (nma 23 October).
Brands including Ladbrokes, Betfair and PKR said they were reassessing their search strategy, and while Microsoft and Yahoo still played a part it couldn't be ignored that 86.7% of UK search traffic, according to Efficient Frontier, goes to Google.
Of course, the theory is that Yahoo will be reinvigorated when the Google search deal goes through, but that appears to be stalling and comments coming from California suggest that there are real fears that it won't go through.
Where does Yahoo go if that's the case? The mobile internet is certainly one possible route, and the news this week that it's begun allowing people to search the web directly from the home screens on their mobile is a good step forward (nma 23 October).
But yet again, all the attention this week has been on Google's Android proposition; yesterday the Telegraph said it was developing an Android application (nma.co.uk 23 October).
So even when Yahoo releases something that looks very promising, it gets overshadowed by Google.
Relaxing control - 17.10.08
Sixteen months ago you wouldn’t have got good odds on Google reversing its decision to ban gambling ads on AdWords. But yesterday nma.co.uk revealed that Google is to make one of its biggest ever U-turns, with the paid search avenue no longer blocked for gaming and gambling terms.
It’s a move that has been lobbied for hard, and Google said it had consulted widely with the gambling sector before making the decision. Obviously this is going to bring in considerable revenues for Google as well as again making search a key acquisition channel for all within the space.
What’s interesting, though, was the way Google industry leader James Cashmore stressed it’s a decision demonstrating that Google understands local market differences. When the ban was enforced it was very much a ‘one company, one world, one policy’ move, with the needs and musts of local markets apparently irrelevant. But this standpoint appears to have changed.
"Dennis Woodside [Google VP and MD for UK, Benelux & Ireland] and the team have been reviewing policies both from legal and user points of view at a local level," said Cashmore. "I definitely think that local markets will make more decisions in the future."
And rightly so. The UK and Ireland is Google’s most important territory after North America, so should be treated accordingly. For the world’s leading online brand to continue to apply a one-size-fits-all policy is completely wrong.
Of course, in these uncertain economic times, even Google can’t be 100% sure of continued success, and today’s Q3 results show that despite increasing revenues and profits by 31% and 26% respectively, an internal cost-cutting exercise has helped.
The decision to reverse its standpoint on gambling in the UK will only help boost these further. But perhaps the main thing to take from this is how the UK side of the business has shown it doesn’t always have to toe the party line.
Successful blend? - 10.10.08
Earlier in the year I asked what the point of Ask.com was these days, suggesting that the company itself wasn't entirely sure.
Well, lo and behold, this week Ask revealed it's to re-jig its results page once again, with much more emphasis on giving users answers to questions directly within the results page.
The search engine, from 20 October in the UK, will be serving up results and information from its own database, such as TV, sport and gig listings where relevant, as well as traditional links away from Ask.com.
From a consumer perspective it's pretty good: it works well, and for the tests I made I got pretty much all the information I wanted directly within the search results.
However, it made me think about blended search. When the old new-look Ask.com launched in spring last year it was hailed as a the first true example of what blended search would look like; images, maps, multimedia results within a three-columned results page.
But with the new relaunch Ask.com seems to have gone back a step or two. While multimedia results are being displayed, it's not quite to the same level as they were before.
Ask says it's honed it down after conducting a comprehensive feedback study.
Nevertheless, its been over 18 months since 'blended search', 'universal search', or however you want to call it became The Next Big Thing. Yet Microsoft, Yahoo and Google are still to make massive changes to their results, and now Ask has tightened up.
Does this mean that blended search is not quite the sea-change that was originally envisaged?
Exclusion zone - 03.10.08
As the old adage goes, if at first you don't succeed try and try again (or at least blame the referee).
Clearly this is something that Microsoft believes in, as this week it announced yet another rewards-focused consumer campaign to get people to use Live Search.
Searchperks!, exclamation mark and all, rewards Live Search users with virtual 'tickets' every time they search - up to a maximum of 25 a day. These are accumulated and can be exchanged for music downloads, airmiles or even an Xbox.
It's a strange one, this, as it's an obvious successor to Live Search Cashback, which, when looking at recent ComScore data, doesn't seem to have had the positive impact Microsoft hoped.
Searchperks! is far more straightforward, logical and despite the large number of tickets you need to redeem a prize (seven months of searches for an Xbox, according to Microsoft) it's very consumer friendly.
But there's a catch: you have to be an Internet Explorer user and have a Windows Live ID to take part.
This decision has been derided in many articles and blogs online already, with the criticism that it excludes too many people - Firefox is performing strongly at the moment, and we all know about new kid on the block Chrome.
Yet it falls absolutely within Microsoft's plans to increase its search share by encouraging already-loyal Microsoft consumers to use it more (nma 20 Septebmer 2007).
Cashback is yet to hit UK shores, and it would be interesting to see whether it's still intended to do so following this week's announcement.
For me, it proves once again that Microsoft realises its never going to achieve the marketshare enjoyed by Google, but fully understands that incentivising its already large user-base across its network puts it in a much stronger position that its nearest rivals, such as Ask.com.
Under the influence - 26.09.08
This week saw the release of the New Media Age Top 100 Agencies 2008 guide, with search represented strongly within.
The guide focuses on technical, design & build, digital marketing and media agencies, with search specialists listed with the Top 100's sister agency guide, the Marketing Services Guide.
However, the influence of search is clear throughout the industry when you scan the Top 100 as well, with a considerable number of those listed (and, of course, all the media agencies) having their fingers in the search pie.
If you look back through the major stories from most of them this past year then search wins (and losses) dominate their coverage, and not just in NMA.
It's also good to see agencies initially seen as search specialists, such as Steak, now very much seen as full-service media agencies.
The challenge is of course to maintain the growth of the industry as a whole - 14% year-on-year according to the Top 100 - and it would be no surprise, especially in the current economic climate, to see search becoming even more central to that in the next 12 months.
Commercial break - 19.09.08
Until this week Google's ventures in to the TV world had predominantly taken place in the US. The most recent being its deal with NBC Universal that will see the broadcaster offer ad inventory from several of its cable networks through Google's fledgling TV Ads platform.
However, this week's NMA revealed that Google has also set its sights on the UK TV sector. The search giant has approached UK media agencies as it looks to run a Google-branded search call-to-action in a TV ad spot in a bid to better-understand how TV can drive search queries.
This isn't a new concept, as explored in NMA back in July (NMA 10.07.08).
Previously car brand Pontiac ran a campaign in the US asking people to "Google Pontiac", while in the UK high-profile examples have been Act On Co2's plea for people to search for exactly that and most recently Orange's "search for I Am" online.
Google, as ever, is playing its cards very close to its chest and not revealing too much, if anything, of its intentions. However, its decision to look in to this area clearly shows, regardless of its spin that it's constantly looking at new ventures, Google believes there's definite value in this channel.
We all know people are online while watching TV, just like we know the UK power-grid almost goes into meltdown during the ad-break in Coronation Street. Google, it seems, wants to take advantage of an integration of the two.
One theory here is that, as Google looks to make AdWords as time-sensitive as possible, it could encourage brands to include search calls-to-action in high-profile ads breaks such as the above, driving people online.
It makes perfect sense; Google itself doesn't even need to be mentioned in the TV ad text as, in the UK more than anywhere else, search IS Google. The guys in Victoria can then just sit back and see the clicks roll in.
Genius move - 12.09.08
Apple unveiled iTunes 8 this week, which has a 'Genius' music-recommendation feature that could have serious financial consequences for music-nuts like me.
It recommends music on the iTunes store directly related to your existing library or tracks from the artist you're listening to that you don't already own.
It's another clever step towards world download domination for iTunes, but makes me wonder why more music-related companies aren't running strong search campaigns.
If you search for, say, Kings of Leon all that comes up in the paid results are ones for tickets from ticketing exchange sites Seatwave and Viagogo.
It's amazing how little activity there is from anyone like HMV, Zavvi or other download sites.
To me it seems logical that you'd want to run campaigns around artists currently hitting the headlines - Stevie Wonder, currently touring in Europe, is another good example.
We all know the bands make their money through sponsorship and concert deals these days rather than album sales, but there are plenty of affiliated organisations - entertainment retailers, merchandisers, and so on - that appear to be missing a trick.
The Genius function of iTunes is a targeted search engine that delivers content related to what you're looking for (that is, what you're listening to). Why can't web search engines be used in same manner?
High street offer - 05.09.08
As we all know, the internet has killed the high street. No-one buys anything from real shops these days thanks to the ability to do it on the sofa in your pants.
Or at least, that was the theory. While high street retailing may well have been hit by online, it's not suffered as much as was originally feared back at the start of the decade.
Search has been a key driver in online becoming a significant retail channel, but it's also a potentially superb way to get people in-store.
This week NMA wrote that Argos is working with its search agency, Summit Media, to look at exactly how search can drive footfall, to obtain a tangible link between consumer research online and then interaction in-store.
There are plenty of brands out there who are yet to go transactional (or indeed, don't ever intend to) so search has to be the method they use to get people to visit them on the high street.
But how many retailers do you actually see running big search campaigns to drive footfall? I spend on lot of time online looking at key high street names' search presence but realistically it's only a handful that appear regularly against generic search terms.
It's as if some retailers that might not have a multi-channel offering are reluctant to be visible on the web, not realising its potential as a footfall driver.
Family values - 29.08.08
As any football fan knows, the Premier League is a pretty predictable and boring place these days with the self-proclaimed 'big four' unlikely to slip from their perches any time soon.
Attention, therefore, turns to either the race for fifth - last season won, but unlikely to be repeated this time around, by my main vice in life Everton - or the relegation battle.
It's the same in search: Google's dominance in the market is so ridiculous now that it's far more interesting looking at the battle between Microsoft and Yahoo! for the number two slot, or at the performance of new engines entering and then slipping out of the market.
Now, though, Google's looking at how to replicate its dominance in search with display.
This week NMA revealed that Orange has become the first advertiser to test third-party ad-serving through DoubleClick across the Google Content Network.
It's early days for the trial, with Google saying other advertisers are soon to be announced, but it's significant for a variety of reasons.
Primarily because it's the first explicit execution of DoubleClick since it became part of the Google family - the theory is with it being one of the world's leading ad-servers it will automatically lure plenty of new advertisers on to the network.
Likewise, the fact that Orange is the first is also important. Google told NMA that few advertisers have the breadth of both product and advertising propositions as the telecoms giant, making it perfect to test across the entire network.
That breadth is the key, as the Content Network, according to media buyers, brings a much more extensive long-tail of smaller sites than other networks.
This, of course, brings the prospect of incremental sales across a multitude of sites; something that any advertiser, and of course Google, welcomes.
It's still early doors, as one former football pundit might have put it, but Google's already gone on the attack.
Seize the day - 22.08.08
Microsoft's relationship with search has always been a nervous one; it has always courted search, but never mastered it.
Bill Gates is the first to admit that Microsoft was late to the game online, especially with regards to search, and endless reshuffles of Microsoft's internal groups imply that the company still isn't sure how to handle the web.
The latest move has been to create a 'commercial search' group, headed by former Multimap CEO Jeff Kelisky.
Kelisky, whose appointment NMA revealed this week (NMA 21.08.08), says the company has identified the key revenue-generating areas of search and is concentrating its efforts on those. Unsurprisingly these include MSN Shopping, mapping and cashback.
Kelisky needs best wishes as it goes without saying that everyone in the search sector wants Microsoft to become a proper player. However, again it just smacks of Microsoft "re-identifying" it's focus one more time.
A few months ago it was looking like Microsoft had the edge over Yahoo! due to some clever developments, such as cashback, but now it's more because of Yahoo!'s apparent demise.
Yahoo! looks to have lost regardless of the outcome of its Google deal - if it goes through it's sold its soul, while if it doesn't then it will have probably lost all bargaining power.
Microsoft, therefore, needs to get its house in order quickly and seize the opportunity to really get ahead of Yahoo!.
Quiet games - 15.08.08
The Beijing Olympics is dominating the news, whether it be revelations about the opening ceremony, the tremendous thunderstorms or news of Michael Phelps’ hundredth medal attempt.
It was no surprise, therefore, that earlier this week brands and sponsors said they were planning ad campaigns to celebrate the success of British Olympians.
So where does search come into this? Nowhere, it seems. If you search for key brands associated with the Olympics, you’ll see very little Olympic activity.
Budgie-smuggler brand Speedo, for example, is behind the swimsuits helping Phelps and co tear up world records so easily, as well as Britain’s Olympic champion Rebecca Adlington. But where are the sponsor’s messages of support ahead of her second gold medal attempt tomorrow?
Some would say the level of attention both Adlington and Nicole Cooke, gold medallist in the women’s cycling road race last Sunday, have garnered since their victories is enough for their kit sponsors to reap substantial benefit.
However, it seems logical to me that those brands, as well as other British Olympic Association partners, such as Adidas and BT, would use search to strengthen those bonds.
As an industry, the search sector is constantly banging on about how advertisers need to make the most of high-profile incidents and events in search campaigns. But, as I've said before, there's still very little evidence to show this is actually happening.
Tough times - 08.08.08
Is it a sign of the times when the sector claimed to be the least likely to succumb to the current economic climate starts to show its vulnerability?
This week NMA revealed that Latitude, the UK’s largest independent search specialist, had shed 10% of its staff. The agency, which has offices in Lancashire and London, said they were support roles rather than client-facing, but it’s still a significant amount.
However, what was most revealing to me were the comments by Neil McCarthy, Latitude’s chief sales and marketing officer. "We're in a situation where existing clients have lowered their overall budgets," he said. “Search is the last to be targeted but it's not totally immune.”
It’s a very honest statement and one not often voiced by search specialists.
I often sense that the search community, especially those specialising in PPC, believes itself to be pretty much invincible. In some respects this isn’t without reason, as search has come from nowhere to be the fastest-growing, arguably most important marketing channel for many brands.
But Latitude’s situation, which I’m sure is reflected at similar companies in the UK, has shown that the sector is vulnerable.
Search may well be the last sector to be hit when digital marketing budgets are readdressed, but perhaps we’re at that point now.
Dynamic thinking - 01.08.08
Search is much more than just another media buy.
Its seems, though, that this thought is increasingly only being applied to one search engine - Google.
We revealed research from Efficient Frontier in NMA this week that showed search spend on Yahoo! had dropped yet again.
What was most interesting about this was when discussing the findings with brands and agencies, so many said that they were not optimising, actively monitoring and managing, Yahoo! or Microsoft-based campaigns.
Essentially, they said that they would buy traffic on both, but nothing more than their own brand - any tactical, strategic work was only taking place on Google.
Obviously, you have to be where the audience is, but should that mean that the others become just commodity buys?
I repeatedly have conversations with search experts who say that both Yahoo! and Microsoft, despite their low traffic numbers, have good conversion rates.
One argument for not optimising or running complicated campaigns on those networks is that there's no need to - they perform well, so is spending time optimising simply preaching to the converted?
However, agencies have said that both Yahoo! and Microsoft are actively encouraging them to run more dynamic campaigns than they have been for quite some time.
While both are desperate to boost traffic figures here in the UK, it seems they're concerned that they're not being seen as dynamic or innovative in the search space.
In a sector that's barely into its teens, and with other search engines having already fallen by the wayside, it's a real worry for them.
Life after BPF - 25.07.08
It's amazing how three letters B, P and F can spark the most animated and hotly debated conversations.
Ever since Google scrapped traditional agency commission and introduced its Best Practice Funding scheme back in 2005 it's been arguably the major talking-point for search specialists.
And now, just a few months until it's dropped, we've entered a stage where it seems to be the make-or-break conversation between brand and agencies.
This week NMA reported that agencies are anticipating numerous large accounts to go out to pitch over the next month or three as brands look to test the market.
The main topic of conversation, specialists say, between clients and agencies is how agencies can operate in a post-BPF world.
The vast majority, I'm sure, won't operate any differently as they haven't been relying on the money to attract new business, but from conversations I've had recently there are still those that have yet to fully prepare for the change.
An interesting issue among this is what Google is now going to do with the money it's no longer giving out as commission.
Agencies, who have been long-suspicious of Mountain View's finest, have queried whether the search giant will use it as a lure to bring in more direct business, marginalising the agencies.
I can't see this happening, though.
Primarily, because Google will be watched intensely by agencies when the change is made at the end of the year, but secondly because it's not in its interest to bypass agencies.
As I understand things, Google has actually encouraged more meetings between agencies, brands and itself in the last year - the opposite of pushing them away.
There's no question that Google has become far more transparent these past few years, so any fear that there will be a sudden block-out is, I feel, completely unfounded.
Alarm bells - 18.07.08
Microsoft and Google saw their share prices drop last night following worse-than-expected financial results.
With the global economy looking so wobbly, any growth from these two companies that's less than incredible sets off alarm bells.
However, it's a piece of research out today from Efficient Frontier that I've found more interesting.
The search specialist said that year-on-year, for every new dollar spent on search ads in the US over Q2 "Google received $1.10, while Yahoo! lost $0.09 and Microsoft Live Search lost $0.01."
Similarly, Google accounted for 77.4% of all spend on search in Q2, up by 2%, with Yahoo! decreasing by the same amount to 17.8% followed by Microsoft at 4.8%
So, despite the doom and gloom on Wall Street, Google's dominance continues unabated.
Undoubtedly, this is even more concerning for Microsoft, which itself said online advertising had slowed.
If the Yahoo!-Google search deal is not blocked by antitrust investigations, surely Microsoft's position in the search market will become even more marginal that it already is.
Brand perception - 11.07.08
As we all know, theory is good, but evidence is better.
This week I spoke with Google about a research project it had undertaken looking at how branding is affected by search.
Results, taken from multiple verticals in the UK, France and Germany, clearly showed the positive increase in brand perception by appearing at the top of the organic and paid listings.
What was perhaps most interesting was the terminology Google was using: "awareness", "recall", "brand affinity", "brand communication".
This is proper brand marketing language - further indication of Google's intent to sell search as considerably more than just another media buy.
Having also had long conversations with Microsoft this week, there's no doubt that both companies now feel that they can prove to advertisers the positive effect search can have on brand.
The evidence, they say, now exists.
Of course, media agencies and search specialists have long known this, and many have their own statistics and research, but I think it's safe to say that neither Microsoft nor Google have gone in to this level of analysis before.
The question now is whether brands will be sold on this. We're entering a potential recession, so are they prepared to take risks? Why not simply use search for direct response, for which it's unquestionably superb?
Chris Dobson at Microsoft tells us in today's podcast that any recession would be an opportunity for brands, and that if they don't spend their way through it they'll lose out.
One thing's for sure, the big guns now have the ammunition to build their cases.
Search friendly - 04.07.08
To make a change, the biggest news in the search sector this week didn't come from Google, Yahoo! or Microsoft, but from Adobe.
The company has released a version of Flash which it says can be picked up by search engines, which I'm sure was heaven to the ears of frustrated Flash developers and brands the world over.
Flash, ubiquitous as it is, has always been bemoaned for its nigh-on invisibility with Google, Yahoo! et al, and while brands and agencies pump budget into rich, Flash-based sites the question of how they're going to be picked by the search engines looms large.
But now, it seems, this is set to change.
"Adobe is providing optimised Adobe Flash Player technology to Google and Yahoo! to enhance search engine indexing of the Flash file format (SWF) and uncover information that is currently undiscoverable by search engines," the company said in a statement.
The interesting omission to that is, obviously, Microsoft. Obvious, because Microsoft has Silverlight, its own, near-competitor to the Flash format.
Speaking to agencies this week, one suggestion is that Adobe has been under extra pressure since Silverlight's roll-out last year, as that - while still far from perfect - was more search engine-friendly.
The question now is whether there will be a further increase in the use of Flash (although its near ubiquity begs the question of whether that is possible), but also whether it will be used correctly.
Belt tightening - 27.06.08
When the going gets tough, the tough get searching.
As the shadow of a recession looms large, the knock-on effect has seen ad budgets if not slashed then certainly tightened.
This week's NMA highlighted concerns raised by key figures within the online industry that brands are rethinking their online ad strategies in light of the current economic misery.
However, one area that looks like it will benefit is search - an accountable, proven marketing channel that shows no sign of slowing down.
Almost everyone from the numerous agencies NMA spoke to for this week's front-page story said that search, and indeed affiliate, will see more money pumped in to it as brands look to areas they can pretty much guarantee will work.
But as brands demand results, does that mean that creativity is sucked out of search?
We've seen plenty of moves this year that have given search specialists the chance to show how creative they can be with campaigns.
Reaction to Google's trademarking decision is probably the most high-profile example, with agencies saying that launching brand protection campaigns was now almost as high on the agenda as brand building and acquisition campaigns for some clients.
But will creativity now be put on hold in favour of results? Will clients solely demand ROI, rather than creative thinking?
Similarly, if search becomes the commodity that it's threatening to be and so simply Just Another Media Buy, will that take the excitement out of it?
I doubt it, but I'm sure that there'll be plenty of meetings between marketing directors and search agencies in months to come where the question of creativity versus results will be top of the agenda.
Second place - 20.06.08
Surprising no-one, Microsoft yesterday revealed that its Live Search cashback scheme trial will be extended in to the UK in the very near future.
What's interesting about this is not necessarily the fact that it's being rolled out here too, but that, because Yahoo! has spurned the company in favour of Google, the pressure is well and truly on Microsoft to perform in the search market.
Chris Dobson, Microsoft Online Services Group's VP of global sales, told NMA: "Cashback has done very well in the US and we will be looking to roll it out in other markets; the UK will be next."
"It's gone down very well and because it's quite tangible," he added. "For Microsoft there's no point being a 'me too' company - you've got to do something different and that's what we're doing with cashback."
For some time now Microsoft has been doing search differently, offering users more than just a basic search experience by merging in games, competitions and now, of course, cashback.
Likewise, today the company's announced its Iconic Britain campaign, a tie-up with Nikon that encourages people to upload and rate their favourite images on to Live Search.
This, to me, seems to make a lot more sense than gimmicks and games, because it's something that attempts to immerse people with the Live Search experience.
The company needs to succeed in a massive landgrab, and so launching campaigns that theoretically will encourage repeat visitors is a logical step.
While Google owns the UK market, the fight for second place is still very much alive, and while Yahoo! appears to have given up the ghost with its Google tie-up, its Microsoft that looks to be edging ahead.
Anti-trust - 13.06.08
Forget Micrahoo, the new word on the street is Googahoo (or maybe its Yahoogle?).
The two-week trial that saw Yahoo! serve Google ads on part of its network earlier this year was obviously a success, as a four-year deal is now in place for the North American market.
So, after all the talk about Yahoo! and Microsoft's impending marriage and discussions over which would gain the most, it's clear that Google has - once again - come out as the winner.
Or has it? While on the surface the prospect of generating revenues from your direct competitor's real estate seems like nothing short of perfect, should we be expecting an almighty hullabaloo to kick-off first.
Because perhaps the new word on the street is actually anti-trust.
This is something that I doubt can be avoided, and considering Microsoft appeared to be most interested in Yahoo!'s search business, what's the betting Steve Ballmer's already been shouting "antitrust, antitrust, antitust" down the phone to regulators.
Microsoft will be furious that Google has seemingly emerged the victor in a battle that it instigated, and highlighting that this deal could breach antitrust regulations is, I'm sure, very much on its agenda.
Looking at the deal itself, it doesn't affect us here in the UK, but how long until we see a similar move? Yahoo! is not as strong over here as it is in North America, so is it not an inevitability?
From conversations I've had with search specialists this morning, it's clear that this may well weaken Yahoo! is in the mind of advertisers, while other issues, such as tracking, will come to the fore.
Duncan Parry, director at Steak Media, explains: "Advertisers will record sales from the Google search network which are from Yahoo! sites, and will need to consider if their Yahoo! paid search ads are assisting these final conversions."
But, as ever, it's all theory at the moment and I'm almost certain that there will be a few more stumbling blocks to overcome until this latest twist finally gets the green light.
Its callback time - 06.06.08
Another week, another sector encompassed by Google’s middle-age spread. This time it’s price-comparison sites.
Google Merchant Search, which has slowly seeped out into a public beta in the last few weeks, currently lets you compare financial service providers in much the same vein as uSwitch or Moneysupermarket.
However, it also lets you book a call with providers by entering your details, including email and phone number, which are sent to the provider, who then calls you back within a period you have specified.
It’s an interesting concept and one that, when it’s extended to other sectors, such as car insurance and telecoms - as I’m sure it will - will go down a storm with consumers.
It’s also another example of Google’s continued focus on the affiliate space, as it’s effectively acting here as a super-affiliate by being paid for every referral.
But then, theoretically, it’s also Google managing to obtain a lot more user information along with knowledge of what they’re interested in.
While the alarm bells are probably not ringing just yet at the price-comparison sites, this is an area that, if fully integrated and promoted with Google’s Universal Search approach, could grab a lot of traffic.
No surprise - 30.05.08
Hands up. How many people actually thought Google might join ad network trade body IASH?
Not many, I would think.
Well, the world's favourite search engine has come out to say it's quite happy with its own guidelines, thankyouverymuch, and that IASH membership will have to wait.
"While we appreciate the work of the IAB and IASH in improving the monitoring of the online ad space, we believe that we have the necessary checks and balances in place on our own network to protect our partners from inappropriate content," said a Google spokesman.
"Over the past year we've introduced more tools that give advertisers and publishers greater control over where their ads are shown. We believe our own terms and conditions are at least equal to IASH's guidelines and as such we don't feel it's necessary for us to join IASH."
This was always going to be the case, and it's sad to say that no-one in their right mind ever thought it would be different.
Would Google's membership actually have been of benefit to IASH? Some have suggested no, saying that it would have simply marched in and requested everyone work to its terms.
However, will it threaten the whole existence of IASH that Google isn't joining? There are agencies that only buy on IASH-acredited networks, so will they actually hold to that if Google stands firm?
Cashback - 23.05.08
Move over pay-per-click; there's a new model in town - pay-to-click. Or at least something like that, according to Microsoft.
The company's latest attempt to become a household name in search has seen Microsoft offer cashback to users making purchases when using Live Search.
It's a bold move, and, to be honest, it smacks somewhat of desperation.
However, it might just be a stroke of genius. Microsoft supremo Bill Gates said the moves gives users "a reason why you should use a particular search engine", and he might just be right.
The reason people use Google is because, for the most part, it gives people what they want - results - that's their reason for using it.
So, to incentivise people to shop using Live Search by offering cashback on purchased items, at a time when belts are being tightened just as much, if not more, in North America as here, might well work.
But, and here's the eternal question, for how long?
Why can't Google just do the same with its Product Search? Similarly, why can't Yahoo!?
Everything moves so quickly online that if this is successful, won't Microsoft's rivals simply put out their own versions?
Brand perception - 16.05.08
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 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.
Comments
Leave a commentWill Cooper are you realy a blue nose? if so email me as you are in good company in the media world... I will explain John Dolphin Digital
left by john doyle, at 13:33 on 29 August 2008
Nice blog, i have added it to my favourites, greetings
left by Bet-at-home, at 19:01 on 17 July 2008
NMA Email Services
Sign up to receive our FREE weekly and daily email alerts including our new weekly Search and Mobile email service.
Adverts
Login to New Media Age (NMA) Online
Forgotten PasswordQuick Search Form
Adverts
Site Navigation
- HOME
- THIS WEEK'S NMA
- NEWS
- FEATURES
- COMMENT
- VIEWPOINT
- JOBS
- RESEARCH
- DIARY
- SUPPLIER DIRECTORY
- USEFUL LINKS
- NMA LIVE
- WEB REGISTER
- TOP 100
- INTERNET
- MOBILE
- TV
- SEARCH
- NEWSFEEDS
- NMA PODCAST
- SUBSCRIBE
Adverts
Promotional Content
Breaking New Media, Internet & Online Marketing News
MySpace app on BlackBerry downloaded 400,000 times since launch
Google to close 3D virtual world Lively
DCSF runs mobile ads to encourage A levels in science
Site Inspection
Glamour
Owner: CondeNet UK