Starting From Search

Search and Open Brands

During iCitizen, Resource President Kelly Mooney provided a glimpse into Open Branding – an innovative concept about how brands can embrace and benefit from the user-generated content model the Web has become.

Beginning to open a brand does not always mean investing in a tactic that feels fringe. It can be a challenge to convince a brand to invest in a viral video where ROI can be hard to determine. Many brands are also still trying to figure out if and how YouTube and Flickr should be part of their marketing strategies. But search is now a proven marketing initiative with easily trackable ROI and it’s a very effective first step to opening a brand.

Search has grown into the first step of every Web experience, becoming the filter by which people manage their Web experiences. According to comScore, Almost 60% of Web users use a search engine every day. Consumers have become accustomed to finding and making brand introductions in search engines.

A recent Nielsen BuzzMetrics study demonstrated that more than 25 percent of search results on Google for the world's 20 largest brands are links to consumer generated content. Search marketing and open branding go hand-in-hand.

At the end of September 2006, I launched an SEM campaign for MI Homes on the Google and Yahoo networks. The main purpose of this was to increase exposure to their brand in 13 different markets. With an industry average SEM click-through-rate of 1%, the MI Homes campaign experienced double that under the guidance of my search team.

Creating this accessibility benefited their brand, not just from increased conversions, but for the ever important mind share. A 2004 Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and Nielsen/NetRatings study found that there is an effective brand lift from SEM campaigns. Consumers responded, as was evident by the high click through rate.

Do You Deserve High Rankings?

I've been very busy with client work, which explains my recent lack of posting.

But I just read an article that is worth pointing to:
Search Insider: Strong Natural Positions Are Not A Birthright

SEO is the Click Fraud Killer

Click Fraud is a two-tiered problem. One is technological and the other public relations. One battlefield is the algorithms that ferret out invalid clicks and the other is dueling press releases and media outlets. Today’s news covers the later.

Independent click-fraud firms that sell click-fraud monitoring services are heightening the fear of click fraud. Or so Google says.

But while these firms may have a financial incentive to make the problem seem larger than it is, so to does Google have a financial incentive to make it seem smaller. Half the fight is over perception of the problem and not the problem itself.

I do agree with Google that the problem has been overstated in the media. It’s the hot topic of the moment which can be easily turned on its head, as I did in a previous post. [Post link: Doesn't It Mean Paid Search is 85% Effective?]

But what is most frustrating to me is that while there is much speculation regarding potential solutions for click fraud, I rarely see anyone talk about the most natural  solution—optimization!

SEO is the click fraud killer. A higher natural ranking means that an advertiser can spend less on pay-per-click and get the same results.

Drive-Thru Windows and Losing Branded Traffic

Last week I stopped by my local Wendy’s for a number 6. The drive-thru line was long and the wait seemed to be taking longer than normal. Random cars in front and behind me began pulling out of the line and leaving.

For those working inside Wendy’s it must have seemed like a busy day—endless cars in line and fries flying off the shelf. But what they didn’t realize was exactly how much business they were losing. And this business they were losing was from people who were in line, ready to buy, but drove away because the wait was longer than normal.

Just as I was thinking of how to turn this into an entry about the customers you don’t know you’re losing because of poor rankings, HitWise released some very interesting data.

Fifteen percent of people who search for a brand name end up going to competitor’s site because they rank higher in search engines, Hitwise learned.

Fifteen percent! I’ve seen people applaud six percent conversion rates for campaigns. Now we learn that many brands might be losing 15% of their customer—people who were looking directly for them—because their competitors rank higher in search results.

That is the direct equivalent of a customer driving out of your brand’s drive-thru line. Investigate having a competitive audit done, to see who you may be losing traffic to and what you can do about it.

Technorati Tags: search, branding, seo

Hyphens or Underscores in URL? Do What the Engines do.

Not long ago, in one of my "Searching for Truth" articles, I posted about the difference between and preference for using hyphens or underscores in a URL.

Quick recap: If a company sells Blue Widgets and they want to rank high for searches related to Blue Widgets, one of many techniques to use is to include the keywords in the URL. Which is more effective, an underscore (www.YourSite.com/Blue_Widgets) or a hyphen (www.YourSite.com/Blue-Widgets)? The question revolves around if an engine is more likely to see Blue_Widgets or Blue-Widgets as two distinct words.

I went into this topic in much more detail in this post, where I also stated my opinion.

While I posited my preference for underscores, a Google engineer named Matt Cutts clearly states that hyphens should be used.

Search engines keep their algorithms under lock and key. People like me often work like detectives to figure out the best ways to optimize sites, using all sorts of information as our guide.

One thing I rely on is simple observation of what the engines themselves do. Obviously they are going to optimize their own sites against their own algorithm.

For example: want to see if MSN Search uses meta tags? Just hop over to www.Microsoft.com and view the source code. Since the webmasters of Microsoft went to the trouble of adding meta tags, it's a safe bet that MSN Search reads them. (How they are factored into the ranking algorithm is another issue.)

So in the case of the hyphen/underscore debate, let's take a look at what Google does, which is highly revealing.

Matt Cutts says to use hyphens, yet on Google.com the underscore is in use. One needs to look no further than the home page:

The URL for the language tools is: http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en
Google's Advanced Search page: http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en

If Google will use an underscore, then the algorithm must be able to determine that “language_tools” is two, distinct words. But then again, Google doesn’t worry about rankings for their own site. But they should follow their own advice, if that advice is truly important.

From my experience, I have seen no difference in results between an underscore and a hyphen. My guess is that it doesn't really matter from Google's perspective if you use hyphens or underscores, in the same manner that it rarely matters if you spell the search term correctly anymore. Google easy adjusts for our lazy spellings.

Some may prefer to do what Google says, but I would rather do what Google does. Or is this a case of do what I say, not what I do?

Technorati Tags: google, meta tags, msn search

Is your Search Marketing a Honda or a Porsche?

Every few weeks, new statistics on relative market share are released for each of the major engines. To no one’s surprise, Google continues to lead the pack by a fair margin.

What do these market share numbers have to do with your search marketing?

Nothing.

Google’s lead continues to increase, percentage-point-by-percentage point, such that when I talk to people about Search, they typically want to hear only about Google. I take this as my cue to try and educate people that a healthy search strategy should encompass search engines as a whole and not focus solely on a single player, no matter how dominant that player may be.

Obviously you want to spend your marketing budget where you can attract the most eyeballs, but focusing on only the top few engines can be folly.

Think of it in these terms. The Honda Accord is one of the best selling cars in America. Porsche, on the other hand, has a 1% market share. But the people who like Porsches would never consider themselves (or the brand they hold dear) to be irrelevant.

Internet users who frequent Ask.com (or LookSmart, or Lycos, or or or…), likewise, do not consider themselves to be irrelevant. They are trying to do the same thing that die-hard Google users are trying to do–find you!

eMarketer’s Misinformed "Shadowy World of Search Marketing"

Each day, I receive The eMarketer Daily. Today they turned their sights on search marketing.

As part of a report they are selling, the lead article says, "Search Marketing: What’s the Problem? While the media spotlight shines brightly on Google, a new eMarketer report delves into the shadowy world of search marketing to uncover problems that may lie ahead for the industry."

One question: when did search marketing become "shadowy"? Organized crime is shadowy. Espionage is shadowy. Search marketing is, well, marketing – a legitimate way to inform customers and potential customers about products.

For some reason, the search marketing arena has been tagged with this moniker in the popular media this year.

Consider junk bond traders only want fast cash, yet no one regards the investment community as a whole as shadowy. Search marketing has a few similar characters, but no where near enough to justify a tarnished image on the industry as a whole.

I have written about the role of search marketing and its place in the greater realm of marketing as a whole, including the perception some hold about/against search marketing:

SEOs: Evil Magicians or Benevolent Interpreters?
In this article, I discussed the original and appropriate intent of a search marketer.

SEO Shady? Hardly.
I posted this in response to a Newsweek article about search marketing. Referring to us as “shady,” Newsweek must have had us confused with Enron.

Search marketing is still a young industry. As a result we will experience some growing pains. But a greater portion of this growth is general education, which eMarketer (and Newsweek) clearly still need to gain.

How Good Intentions can Ruin Search Rankings

As a consultant, I am sometimes asked about specific optimization techniques that could cause damage to overall search rankings, or, worse, a complete delisting. Usually, these questions are from well-meaning webmasters or marketing directors just trying to honestly increase site rankings.

For example, a few weeks ago a developer asked me if he could include a headline that was in a graphic elsewhere on the page. But his idea was to match the font color to the background color, which is called, in SEO lingo, hidden text.

I refer to this as “accidental black hat.” In the search optimization industry, we reference two general types of optimization – white hat and black hat optimization. White hat optimization is the honest attempt to make a site search engine friendly in order that search engines can properly rank a site so searchers can find the content offered for the appropriate keywords.

Black hat optimization refers to those who purposely manipulate the techniques to artificially enhance site rankings, even for keywords that are not appropriate to the searchers' needs. Penalties for black hat optimization vary for each engine, but it can be a loss of rankings up to a complete ban.

Accidental black hat, then, would be those who employ a tactic in a complete well meaning fashion, yet do not realize they run a risk, sometimes greatly so, of a penalty or ban from a search engine. They make changes in their search strategy with good intentions, but end up inadvertently committing one of the “sins of search” that ultimately put their site at risk.

I try to advise clients on this topic as delicately as I can. It is often a case of having a little bit of search knowledge and trying to deploy it without knowing all the complexities. Something akin to the saying, "knowing enough to be dangerous."

If you are implementing optimization on your site, it is a great idea to have a search consultant help make sure you are getting the most of your strategy – and make sure you are not accidentally putting your site in jeopardy of an engine penalty.

Flash is not Search Friendly. Period.

In the past few weeks I have been asked by several people about the ability of search engines to index content that is inside Flash. I have also seen a new grouping of posts on popular Web forums about this very issue. It seems like every so often this issue pops back up.

I can sum it up in five words: Flash is not search friendly.

Sure, there are some technical implementations of Flash that may help spiders follow links in flash, but if search rankings are truly important, Flash is not for you.

That does not mean Flash needs to be sequestered from Web development. I have written before about how to utilize Flash in search friendly ways. [Article reference: Go Hybrid!]

But using uber-technical methods, such as changing embed methods, are simply band-aids. A full Flash site will be overwhelmed in the rankings game by sites that utilize best practices. And most search best practices cannot be implemented on a Flash site.

If search rankings are really important to you, then avoid Flash or use it in limited fashion. But don’t fret – you can still have a truly eye-catching site without Flash.

I am not anti-Flash by any means. It is a powerful tool. But Flash and high search rankings do not mix.

Think Google Doesn’t Use Meta Tags? Think Again.

The most common reason I hear other search marketers site for not to use Meta tags is, "Google ignores them."

While I have expressed my support for Meta tags in the past [here and here], there is plenty of evidence that Google does indeed index tags.

I went to Amazon.com and pulled up a page for a popular book. In this case I used The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman. [Amazon link]

Amazon.com includes Meta tags for each product listing. In this case of The World is Flat, they are:

meta name="description" content="Amazon.com: The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century: Books: Thomas L. Friedman by Thomas L. Friedman"

meta name="keywords" content="The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century,Thomas L. Friedman,Farrar, Straus and Giroux,0374292884,Diffusion of innovations,Economic aspects,General,Globalization,History & Theory - General,History: World,Information society,International - Economics,International Economic Relations,International Relations - General,Politics - Current Events,Social Forecasting,Social Science,Social aspects,Sociology,Social Science / General"

Note: opening < removed to ensure proper display.

Then, I checked Google’s listing for this specific page.

[Click image for pop up with more detail]

As you can see, Google is displaying a description that was taken directly from the Meta description tag.

Since the Title tag and Meta were so similar in this example, I decided to try another site – Microsoft.com.

Microsoft.com Meta tags:

meta name="KEYWORDS" content="products; headlines; downloads; news; Web site; what's new; solutions; services; software; contests; corporate news;"

meta name="DESCRIPTION" content="The entry page to Microsoft's Web site. Find software, solutions, answers, support, and Microsoft news."

Note: opening < removed to ensure proper display.

Google’s listing for the Microsoft.com home page pulls the Meta description tag directly.

[Click image for pop up with more detail]

Does Google Ignore Meta Tags?
The issue comes down to what other search marketers mean by the word “ignore.” Clearly, Google does not ignore Meta tags, but they likely do not use Meta tags in their ranking algorithm, as they are often a target of keyword spam abuse.

As an added bonus, the Microsoft.com example also proves that MSN Search uses Meta tags. Microsoft would not have taken the time to put Meta tags on the home page if their own engine didn’t use them.

Searching for Truth: Placing Keywords in a Page URL

Does it help overall search rankings to use keyword in a site or page URL? For example, if a company makes blue widgets, is it helpful to have a page with the URL of yoursite.com/blue_widgets?

The answer is not a simple yes or no. File names are used in matching search queries, but not as much as the page title and quality page content.

Using the example above, if a company makes blue widgets, having a listing on the site at yoursite.com/blue_widgets/ is a good idea for a few reasons.

From a usability perspective it makes the URL easy to remember for customers, especially when the trigger action is delayed - such as when the URL is seen in a brochure, banner ad or TV commercial.

But can it help in search rankings? It can, but it's devalued in terms of effectiveness. This value has been devalued over time because of keyword stuffing. I've seen some comical versions of this all over the web - file names stuffed with keywords and many hyphens. That is ineffective and the risk of a search engine ban is high.

Here is a real life example, with the main site domain removed to erase any potential link endorsement:

www.[This-Part-Removed].com/paintball-gun-scopes-paintball-gun-scopes-jungle-paintball-jungle-paintball/

Gee, I wonder what words they want to rank well for.

Direct, easy URLs to the products you make are a good idea, though search ranking considerations should be a minor factor. Doing so can help a little, but don't be in any rush to rename files to match keywords.

Extra explainer: In my example above, notice the words are separated by an underscore: yoursite.com/blue_widgets. Doing so will ensure a search engine will regard it as two distinct words, not a single, hyphenated word.

----------------------------------

This post is part of a multi-series column called, Searching for Truth, designed to shed light on the latest trends, myths and misconceptions in search marketing. Links to other columns in this series:

February 22, 2006 - Searching for Truth: Placing Keywords in a Page URL

September 19, 2005 - Searching for Truth: Mining Site Stats

August 4, 2005 - Searching for Truth: Site Resubmissions

Search Engine Use Increasing Exponentially. Are You Taking Advantage?

Last week Nielsen//NetRatings announced the search market has grown 55% in the last year.

The Kelsey Group is predicting local search will increase 30.5% over the next four years.

Today, Nielsen//NetRatings reported that Google and Yahoo sponsored link impressions have increased 16% in the last six months. In January alone, Google and Yahoo served almost 65 billion sponsored links!

Yet with all this rabid growth in the search channel, many companies are still not investing in this method of reaching customers, new or old. Likewise, there are also plenty of interactive agencies that fail to implement anything other than the simplest of search techniques for their clients.

The marketing "sweet spot" is reaching someone with your message when they want to buy products in your niche. That is exactly what search marketing does on a daily basis – presenting results (messages) to potential customers (searchers) right at the time they are looking for the information.

Search marketing has long past its tipping point. It is here and it is going to stay. It won’t be long before more people are going to experience your brand and products through a search engine results page than a TV commercial. Why not reach them at the moment they are looking for what you offer? If you are working with an interactive agency, ask them if they can deliver competent optimization as part of the project.

I will give a tip of the hat to the Ford Motor Company, though. They recently reported they have sold more than 250,000 vehicles through FordDirect internet referrals. The oldest car maker in the world is using a new channel of marketing to sell an old technology (cars) to an audience that is growing more reliant on search.

Pontiac, on the other hand, got it all wrong.

Pontiac Features Google in Ad; Comes Up Short

As I sat watching American Idol, a TV commercial for Pontiac aired expressing the features of their cars and ended by saying, "see for yourself, Google Pontiac."

At first, I thought, "Pontiac gets it!" Clearly, Pontiac is seizing power of the search engine. They must be aware that more and more people are relying on search. They must be aware how search engines are part of the buying funnel. Right??

So I did what the commercial suggested — I Google'd Pontiac. This is what I saw:

[Pop up image: 499 x 473 pixels]

At the top is a banner ad for Pontiac. Somewhat of a waste of money since the official Pontiac site ranks number one in the organic listings.

But I clicked on the banner ad anyway to see what page it would take me to. A page that mimics the message of the commercial? A further search tie-in??

The banner goes absolutely nowhere. Literally.

[Pop up image: 500 x 542 pixels]

Repeated tests of the banner ads continued to bring the same (lack of) response.

The third banner ad, directing users to the "Pontiac Shopping Site" does not work either. Since it is a GM banner ad, I assume it was placed in cooperation of the main banner ad.

When I did get to the home page (by clicking the first organic listing), I see that the messaging on the home page is similar to what they are trying to accomplish with the TV commercial. They are encouraging users to see what others are saying about them.

They are encouraging people to interact with the Pontiac brand through Word-of-Mouth marketing. But even the results page comes up short — no Pontiac fans extolling their love for the brand or the quality of the cars.

It makes me wonder, did Pontiac Google Pontiac? Did the ad agency that produced the commercial Google Pontiac?

So I wondered, what would happen if I Yahoo'd Pontiac?

[Pop Up Image: 501 x 506 pixels]

Same banner ad, same results.

[Pop Up Image: 497 x 506 pixels]

MSN?

[Pop Up Image: 500 x 481 pixels]

Results?

[Pop Up Image: 500 x 482 pixels]

And this took place during American Idol. Forty million eyeballs about to turn into deaf ears?

Pontiac almost got it. It’s just a shame they were undone by terrible SEM execution.

When Search Marketing becomes Mechanical

I just went through a Wendy’s drive-thru to pick up some lunch and had one of those eureka moments that most people have in the shower.

Like you might expect, first I gave my order into the menu board speaker, then I pulled up to the first window to pay. To my surprise, the drive-thru lady greeted me with a handful of change. Not only had I not paid for the meal yet, but I was going to pay with plastic.

At first I was just confused. Then I realized what she had done; she’d assumed that I’d hand her a specific amount of cash and she’d already counted out the change to give me in return. Her job has become so mechanical that she can predetermine how much change she needs to have ready based on the total. My order was $5.37, so she had change for $10 ready for me.

After surprising her with a credit card, she had to zero out my order and start over. While her mechanical system probably saves time for many people, it took much longer for me.

While I'm all for watching the numbers, following trends and making educated guesses, I wonder how often we lean on these shortcuts and they in turn do us (or other people) a disservice. Is your marketing this mechanical? Is it driven by some predetermined rules or experiences that do not or cannot comfortably deal with exceptions?

Like any channel of marketing, search can accidentally become mechanical. That is where working with a search expert, either as a consultant or on staff, pays dividends.

On a recent web project, upon learning that the client regarded search as very important, a developer said, "no problem, we’ll just pop in title tags and meta tags." As a search expert, I recognized how horribly over-simplified this statement was. (Reference a previous entry where I listed just a few best practices.)

Search does not always boil down to a single tactical implementation. For fear of sounding cliché, search is as much art as it is science. There is a broad palette of tools, strategies and tactics to work with to create a robust, flexible search strategy—one that handles the rules and the exceptions.

Search Tactics: The Low Hanging Fruit

A little while ago while giving a small search presentation, I was asked by an attendee if there were some “easy” search tactics that could be implemented on a site.

I worked up a short list, of which I could write a paragraph about each one. Maybe I’ll cover each in more detail in upcoming entries.

1. Place unique title tags on every page. Include primary keywords and key phrases related to that specific page.

2. Place unique meta descriptions and meta keywords tags on every page that contain keywords/phrases relevant to that specific page.

3. Write indexable, relevant body copy that contains primary keywords and key phrases.

4. Be sure all your page links that contain descriptive anchor text (not "click here") that cross link pages on a site.

5. Use the ALT attribute in IMG tag. This is also valuable for screen readers and 508-compliance as well.

6. Place a site map text link in the footer of as many pages as possible. Be sure the site map has text links to every page on your site. It’s a quick and easy roadmap that helps get spiders (and users!) around your site.

The above list is just a start, of course. Some next steps could include keyword research, database improvements, submissions, site audits, measuring site rankings, pay-per-click ads, navigation changes and other ongoing maintenance.

Search Grew 55%. Did Your Brand Awareness?

Newly released data from Nielsen//NetRatings shows tremendous growth in online search. Measured across 60 search engines from December 2004 to December 2005, search traffic grew 55%. Google still holds a higher market share over other engines.

Did this growth in search engine usage also increase your brand awareness?

This double-digit growth shows greater reliance on search engines to find information and products on the Web. More than ever, brand awareness could very well begin with search. Not that highly designed print ad, or with a giant billboard - but that stark, search engine results page.

SEO Contests

There is yet another seo contest spoiling the web. Yes, I say spoiling, because that is exactly what they do.

To quickly sum up: a company picks a made up phrase and offers a cash prize to whomever gets and holds the number one spot after a specified length of time.

I’m not going into detail about the current contest because I don’t want anyone to think I endorse it in any way. It’s just the opposite.

These contests make us (search marketers) look bad. The reason is because many of the people competing will use a variety of black hat (unethical) search marketing techniques to win. They will use keyword spam, massive and shady link building… you name it.

To those of us in the industry, we might be able to analyze the results afterwards to see what techniques were used, quickly seeing if anything interesting turned up.

But for those on the outside, they will see a massive abuse of the system in order to get quick cash.

On the heals of the Newsweek article that cast search marketers in an unfair light, those of us in the industry need to do a better job informing everyone exactly what it is we do. [More on the Newsweek article here: SEO Shady? Hardly. ]

To use an earlier analogy, SEO contests make us look like junk bond traders, when we are more like financial investors.

Who Cares about Your Home Page?

I want to follow up on something I touched on a few days ago. [Reference article: Google as Part of Your Shopping Cart]. For well-optimized sites, you can find two-thirds of your site traffic entering your site on a deeper-level page—not your home page.

As people search, they will type in queries that are more and more specific. General keywords often don't produce highly valuable results. For example, I could search on "wine" but if I searched on "red wines from Spain," I will be further along in getting the information I was looking for.

The further along someone is in the buying funnel, the more specific the search query. And the more specific the search query, the more likely they are to click through to a deeper level page with specific information, and not a home page that typically has general information.

In my many years in working in this industry I have been part of building many new sites. Early in the project, designers work up creative concepts that include home page concepts and a drill down page. Since search engines create multiple entry points, high volumes traffic can enter your site and never see your home page.

Home pages are becoming less important, thought we still treat them like they are the most important page on a site. Clients base creative decisions or design a navigation structure based on how it fits on the home page.

Why do we continue to give the home page a level of importance that it may no longer deserve?

Home pages are great at guiding visitors. Based on the copy and design, customers can (or should) quickly move deeper toward the information and products they want.

But if someone starts on your product page, do they know what to do next? It’s more important for the navigation structure to work and seem natural on the deep product page. The design of the product page (or other deeper level pages) needs to be more helpful and intuitive than the home page.

Who cares about your home page? It's highly likely your customers don't.

Search as Part of your Shopping Cart

Holiday and comparison shopping go hand-in-hand. Who doesn’t want a good deal when you’re buying a small mountain of gifts for family and friends? New data suggest that shopping and search engines now go hand-in-hand as well.

Hitwise found that 11.1% of all December shopping related visits started at Google. Yahoo! added in another 4%.

More than one of every ten holiday purchases online started at a search engine!

Search engines are becoming a natural part of the buying funnel and they make a perfect gateway when comparison shopping. Typing in more specific product names net a large return of sellers. A few clicks and a shopper can quickly see who is offering better pricing.

Look at your site stats? Where are people entering your site? It is not uncommon for well optimized, highly product driven sites to have two-thirds of site visitors enter on a product page – not your home page.

Google just became part of your shopping cart.

Google in the Lead

According to comScore Media Metrix, Google increased its market share, leading by a full 10%. With a marketshare of 39.8%, Google widens its lead over Yahoo! with 28.5%, and MSN with 14.2%.

For some, this will reinforce the "follow Google" movement. Far too many search marketers disproportionately focus on a single engine, which can reduce the effectiveness of a search campaign. After all, Yahoo (with "only" 29% of the market) is still a doorway to a huge audience.

I have written about this twice before, and I think it offers valuable perspective if you are looking at optimization and banners. (Article links: Widen the Point of View and Lack of Search Loyalty)

In short, don’t let your search marketing firm focus to closely on Google, or any single engine.

SEO Shady? Hardly.

The latest edition of Newsweek has a short article on SEO. It actually seems to be more an article on black-hat SEO, the dark side of our industry.

Black-hat SEO is akin to junk bond traders. It does not mean that financial investing is shady, just that there are a few people that toss ethics aside for fast cash. Despite the (I believe) low numbers of black hat SEOs, our industry is disproportionately stigmatized by their presence.

I have noticed that popular media articles tend to lean toward reporting on this type of search marketing. Is it sexier? I'm guessing that a lead such as Newsweek's, "Inside the shadowy world of SEOs" will get more eyeballs than, "How companies can increase profits with search marketing." One seems intriguing, one seems like a boring business article.

I also take difference with the author's statement that search engines "tolerate" SEO. I've written before about the true nature of SEOs and our role with search engines. While I'm sure various engines would rather us tell our clients to purchase pay-per-click banners (to increase their profits), ethical SEOs play an important role in organizing the web's data for easy finding.

I also wish Brad Stone made it clear that black-hat SEO can lead to a site being banned from search engines.

If nothing else, this article should be a cautionary tail to Marketing Directors everywhere to be aware of unethical tactics used by some in the industry. Don't hesitate to ask a search marketer about ethics and ask them to include a statement about following ethical search practices in a contract.

Spiders Model Human Behavior

I just spent a good amount of time on the road, making sales calls. I always learn a lot when I'm talking to potential clients about search marketing.

Usually, I notice two types of people. The first type has really not heard much about search marketing and everything I say to them is interesting and new.

The second group, on the other hand, has done some reading and are mired in the extreme details of search.

Instead of wanting to talk about how search marketing can best serve their organization, they just want to know how many characters a title tag should have or how often spiders will visit their site.

Whichever group you are in, remember one thing: search engines are trying to mimic human behavior.

Don't try to hard to deconstruct the many facets of a spider and then build your site around that.

For example, humans generally scan web pages. That's why well-written headlines (with a keyword or two) are important. Think first of your human counterparts and your search marketing will be more natural.

Control the Search Conversation

Search marketing as a whole has only recently (in the last few years) found it's place along side other forms of channel marketing. Marketing Directors and VP's have begun to budget for it along side other facets in their marketing campaigns.

While it is good to see, those of us that have been in search marketing for years have to remind ourselves that there are still quite a number of people that do not know all the buzz words of our niche. Last week when talking to a prospective client, he said, "I don't even know what I should ask you..."

I listen for, what I call, the verbal ellipses. Anyone who has read a book has seen the three-dot ellipse that signifies a sentence trailing off. People have a tendency to speak with a verbal ellipse when they are unsure what to say or ask.

I use the verbal ellipse as my cue to control the conversation and find ways to make it easy for the other person to be part of the search marketing conversation. If you sell SEO, you need to do that, too.

In that situation it's easy to take control of the search conversation. Don't wait on them to ask you about your expertise. When you hear the verbal ellipses, start asking questions. Buy keeping the conversation going and focusing it on the client, you will be able to demonstrate your knowledge.

Things you can ask:
When did you notice your search marketing was not where you wanted it to be?
How do your competitors rank in comparison to you?
Do you know what keywords are the most popular in your industry?
Do you have more than one site? Do they link to each other?
Are you currently buying any keyword banners?
What type of results are you looking for from a search strategy?

The Home Depot Lesson

In my last post I talked about search fundamentals. (Reference: My High School Volleyball Coach was a Search Expert.) In this post I'm going to tackle the same issue, just from the other side.

This is prompted, partially, by some emails I received this week. After reading my last post, several people emailed me and were concerned because they do implement the fundamentals I mentioned, yet didn't seem to be achieving any rankings.

My previous post pointed out that some sites fail to utilize fundamental concepts of search optimization and thusly, their site rankings suffer for it. But employing search fundamentals does not automatically pave a smooth path to high rankings. Which is what many of the emails were about – webmasters that had used the fundamentals I listed, but had other factors undoing their work.

HomeDepot.com has this very problem.

While looking at the Home Depot site, many of the sections do use many of the fundamentals I mentioned. Yet the results are negated by the way they serve their pages.

While looking at the Home Depot site, many of the sections do use many of the fundamentals I mentioned. Yet the results are negated by the way they serve their pages.

Why is this? A quick look at the URL tells the story.

Building & Remodeling Page URL:
http://www.homedepot.com/prel80/HDUS/EN_US/diy_main/pg_diy.jsp?
BV_SessionID=@@@@0321932570.1130518669@@@@&BV_EngineID
=cceeaddgdhlmkgdcgelceffdfgidgjm.0&CNTTYPE=PROD_META&CNTKEY
=Super%20Categories/Building%20%26%20Remodeling&MID=9876&pos=p04

The Building & Remodeling landing page is using some optimization, if you look at the page content only. The headline of the section is in spider-digestible text. The links are also in text and make good use of keywords, though the title tag does not. The image is missing an ALT attribute, as well.

But by serving pages in the dynamic method Home Depot uses, and embedding session ID information in the URL, the page itself is becomes unreachable by a search spider. Each time that page is displayed, the session ID attribute will cause the URL to change.

Here is the page URL when I visited the Building & Remodeling page 15-minutes later. I added emphasis to point out the differences:
http://www.homedepot.com/prel80/HDUS/EN_US/diy_main/pg_diy.jsp?
BV_SessionID=@@@@1019911279.1130522948@@@@&BV_EngineID
=ccdeaddgdhlmiklcgelceffdfgidgkj.0&CNTTYPE=PROD_META&CNTKEY
=Super%20Categories/Building%20%26%20Remodeling&MID=9876&pos=p04

If site owners are not careful search marketing fundamentals can be un-done by other factors. Optimization ultimately needs to extend beyond page copy and title tags. A review of underlying technical implementation of page code is worth the time and expense.

Go Hybrid!

Flash and search go together as well as diets and buffets. Actually, diets and buffets can go together with some discipline.

If you go hybrid, you can get flash to play well with your search marketing as well. Here are some tips...

Avoid all flash intro pages
Even if you have a "skip intro" link, flash intros push all of your site content an extra click down. If the link is in the flash itself, a search spider will not get past the intro and to your site's content.

Avoid flash-based navigation
If the site navigation is also built into the flash file, a search spider will not be able to migrate around the site to mine content. Without mining the content, a search engine will not be able to determine which keywords match your site.

Avoid putting site copy in flash
Copy in the flash file will be regarded the same as copy in an image – it will be skipped. Copy inserted into flash is converted to art, just like any image, and not native text.

Here are a few examples of sites that follow the basic advice above:
AMG Engineering
Think It Over
Plexus3, Ltd. - yes, even our own site is a hybrid.

Remember, if you want to use flash and be mindful of search rankings you need to go hybrid.

What Search Engines can Learn from Supermarkets

In a poll released in early May by Harris Interactive, consumers rated which industries they felt were doing a good (or bad) job of serving their consumers.

Supermarkets ranked number one in terms of consumer satisfaction with 92% of respondents saying supermarkets were doing a good job, as opposed to 8% who didn’t. Computer hardware companies were second with an 84% favorable to 10% unfavorable ratio.

Search engines held a respectable 7th place with 79% favorable and 11% unfavorable. (Not surprisingly, Tobacco and Oil companies came in last with two out of every three people saying they did a poor job.)

What can a search engine learn from a supermarket? Categorization.

When you walk into a grocery store you are presented many aisles – items divided in categories. Like foodstuffs are put together with signs in each aisle telling customers what is there. The end of each aisle has other items that could be related or just sale items. In search terms, I think of those as the pay-per-click listings. Easy to skip if you want, but sometimes very helpful.

Search engines have failed to grasp this concept. Most engines present information in a single, long list that spans many pages. That would be the equivalent of a grocery store having a single, long aisle. Shoppers would find that tedious and unhelpful, yet search engines have stuck to that very motif for years.

Search professionals fight for the first 10 spots for any keyword search. Statistics show that most searchers don’t view results on the second page. That makes sense, if you think about it. People are looking at what is up front, even if it is not particular relevant.

If I was a producer, I would want my products at the very front of the aisle because I know that the things up front would tend to be noticed more, even if they weren’t relevant to what the customer really wanted.

Look at this research by Thorsten Joachims, et al., at Cornell University [Link to PDF] and perfectly summed up by Jakob Nielson. After typing in a search query, a majority of searchers clicked the very first link returned even if it was not relevant.

This is why categorization becomes important.

Teoma beat everyone with this concept with their Results, Refine, and Resources method of listing results. While I would argue the results of the refine and resources are not always helpful, they have the right idea. They are trying to find ways to present relevant information to their users in a way that is also quick to browse – just like the signs hanging in the supermarket aisle.

Zoom with Jeeves
In late May, Ask Jeeves introduced Zoom, which they describe as the "next-generation related-search tool that gives users suggestions to narrow or expand their searches." They also claim it is the only search technology that clusters the web into topical communities in real-time.

It displays three sets of related results on the right side of the page next to the search listings. The first set lets you "Zoom in" or narrow your search, the next set lets you "Zoom out" by offering listings that are wider but still conceptually related, while the third and least useful of the sets offers names of people that are related to the original search.

I have also had mixed results with Ask Jeeves' Zoom tool. But I applaud the effort and hope it blossoms and becomes more wide spread. Hopefully over time, they will spend as much time refining their categorization tools as they spend on their ranking algorithms. Then search engines will be more useful than supermarkets.

Searching for Truth: Mining Site Stats

What are your site stats really telling you?

Web stats packages such as Webtrends and Urchin can tell site owners how visitors are interacting with a site. It’s certainly a valuable tool overall, but more and more I see webmasters and marketing directors looking at site stats for insights into search marketing. In one case, the insight they are seeking is a misguided one.

Top Keyword Referrer
Site stat packages offer a listing of the top ten keyword referrers. It's not uncommon for a site owner to tell me that they know what keywords are working – they have the top keyword referrers from their site stats. But this is not the list you may think it is.

This will tell you what keywords you are ranking well for now, but it doesn't tell you what keywords you actually need to rank well for to fully utilize your potential. And if any more than 4 or 5 of those keywords are variations of your company name, your search optimization is failing you.

Only quality keyword research can uncover which keywords and keyword phrases are being used in your market space, and thusly, which keywords need to be optimized for on a site.

----------------------------------

This post is part of a multi-series column called, Searching for Truth, designed to shed light on the latest trends, myths and misconceptions in search marketing. Links to other columns in this series:

February 22, 2006 - Searching for Truth: Placing Keywords in a Page URL
September 19, 2005 - Searching for Truth: Mining Site Stats
August 4, 2005 - Searching for Truth: Site Resubmissions

Searching for Good

Over the weekend I paid particular attention to how search engines were being used to help people find ways to donate to Katrina-related charities. As I conducted searches using various keywords in various engines, it was clear charity organizations were appropriately utilizing pay-per-click banners.

The American Red Cross web site won on two fronts. First, they purchased banners for several Katrina-related keywords, increasing their exposure to those looking to donate money. Second, RedCross.org makes good use of search optimization best practices. For nearly all Hurricane Katrina-related keywords in various search engines, they ranked in the top 5. Searchers prefer organic (natural) listings to paid (sponsor) listings by a margin of 10-to-1, which made the American Red Cross’s investment in optimization very valuable, timely and helpful.

(Large pop up: 833x463)

I give the American Red Cross a thumbs-up for their effective use of search marketing.

As impressed as I was with the Red Cross, the number of people that took advantage of pay-per-click for different reasons equally appalled me.

Early this morning I did a search on “Red Cross” in a few search engines. Here are some of the results:

(Large pop up: 834x791)

(Large pop up: 866x514)

As you can see on Google and AskJeeves there is a banner pitching life insurance, which seems to be a very inappropriate time to do so. In Google a purchased banner is being used to spread the word about a new song release. Both advertisers obviously understood that there would be a greater number of searches for the Red Cross since Hurricane Katrina and also in the coming weeks. The same insurance company also purchased a banner on Ask Jeeves.

Part of the pay-per-click strategy is to utilize keywords to the best advantage. Clearly there are many more people searching with the term “Red Cross,” but is this pay-per-click behavior appropriate? In this case I think basic humility lost out to naked capitalism.

Holiday Cheer in August

As I have noted previously noted, now is the time to start thinking about the holiday season in regards to the search channel. Yes, it’s still sunny out and you may be thinking more about getting your kids back to school, or lamenting about Halloween being just around the corner, but it is indeed the time think about the winter holidays and your search rankings. Here’s why:

Organic Search
Higher listings take longer to build but are worth it. Significantly more searchers click on organic listings over paid listings – by a margin of upwards of 10-to-1. It can take weeks for keyword and other SEO changes on your site to resonate as higher rankings in engines. Start working on those organic rankings now to be sure you have a good foundation in November.

Pay-Per-Click
You have a bit more time with pay-per-click since banners can be added and removed fairly quickly. But measuring your ROI on your banner campaign and to get comfortable running an effective budget takes a bit more time. Starting now (or soon) gives you time to refine your pay-per-click campaign so that it is delivering the most effective results by the time all the holiday searchers come online.

With over 90% of the online population using search engines to get around the web, the amount of traffic search engines can bring to a site is a major factor in online holiday success.

Searching for Truth: Site Resubmissions

Search is a valuable investment of time and money for many reasons I have covered in various posts here. As with any growing and changing industry, some out-dated practices continue to be used. I thought I would start a series of articles around such items and in today’s post I would like to talk about site resubmission.

Resubmitting a Site to Search Engines
This old practice sometimes pops back up in odd places, mostly by clients that ask me off-the-cuff, "Oh, and how often should we resubmit our site?" This time it popped up in a most unexpected place. I learned that a large SEO company was still guiding their clients to resubmit their sites. This is something they even listed on their web site. I was really surprised to see this company still suggesting this practice since site resubmission is a waste of time and money, and brings no benefit to rankings.

Site resubmission was a technique that was done in the past (pre-2000) but has fallen out of favor by search experts and the engines themselves. Search marketers would resubmit sites every month or when a site went through a major update.

Today’s landscape is much different. Once a site is submitted to a search engine the first time, it never needs to be submitted again. Once you are in the engine’s database there is no reason to ask to be included in the database again, which is what you are doing if you resubmit. It’s like calling the phone company to list a phone number that is already listed in the phone book.

Many engines will even find your site without a submission. Spiders follow links around the web and if a site that is already in an engine’s database links to your site, your site will be crawled.

The view that resubmitting your site will get you indexed more often is a fallacy, too. The way to keep spiders coming back is to keep updating your site with appropriate content and getting quality sites to link to you.

How does this affect my rankings? It doesn't. It’ll just be a waste of time.
Resubmission won’t affect your site rankings. Mostly, it’s just a waste of time (or money if you are paying for the service). There have been whispers in the past that sites that are resubmitted too often could be penalized, but I find this highly suspect. The reason is simple: someone could constantly resubmit a competitor’s site until the site was penalized. Certainly a dirty practice that would be greatly frowned upon, but that is the key reason why resubmissions are simply ignored.

----------------------------------

This post is part of a multi-series column called, Searching for Truth, designed to shed light on the latest trends, myths and misconceptions in search marketing. Links to other columns in this series:

February 22, 2006 - Searching for Truth: Placing Keywords in a Page URL

September 19, 2005 - Searching for Truth: Mining Site Stats
August 4, 2005 - Searching for Truth: Site Resubmissions

Yahoo Index Update

Last night Yahoo began an index change. They anticipate it will allow for deeper crawls on sites. Yahoo reports that rankings will fluctuate as the index changes continue over the next two weeks.

Advice: If you notice ranking changes on targeted site keywords, it would be best to not react in hast until the index change is complete and the ranking changes settle back down.

Ultimately, changes like this are good.

Widen the Point of View

Previously, I addressed the lack of search loyalty. (See previous post: Lack of Search Loyalty.) Evidence has always suggested that searchers use more than one engine as they try to find the information they want.

This has always been a key reason why I tell clients to not to optimize their sites with only one engine in mind.

New research from Harris Interactive further supports this. Only 13% of Google users say they use Google exclusively. The other 87% are using other engines! Searchers that prefer other engines are even less loyal. Only 10% of MSN Search users say they use MSN exclusively.

Despite this, so many assume they only need to pay attention to their Google search rankings. This evidence points out the value of a wider point of view.

Your Wow Factor

I’m a fan of the web. So much of my daily life revolves around it. And I still enjoy the "Wow!" factor the web can provide.

Don't Click It has plenty of "Wow!"

It is a 100% Flash site that requires no clicking in order to navigate. The downside is that, like all Flash sites, it is invisible to a search engine spider. Search engines cannot index Flash, or any content nestled in Flash.

But everyone wants some “Wow!” on a web site. Who doesn’t want to capture a visitor’s attention when they see the site for the first (or fourth) time? Flash, in the hands of the right designer, can certainly deliver plenty of "wow".

The case for or against Flash is a discussion on business objectives. Delivering "wow" can still be accomplished without killing your search health.

Things to remember with Flash:
Don’t put mission critical data in Flash. Spiders cannot read copy (and hence keywords) that are embedded in flash.

Don’t put content that changes often in Flash. It does not take a programming expert to update text in HTML, whereas Flash requires a person competent with the program.

Don’t put your site’s navigation in Flash. Search spiders cannot follow links that are embedded in Flash.

Still Use Flash?

Yes. The trick is in how Flash is used. Flash works best (and can still deliver wow) when it’s used as an element of a site, not to construct the entire site itself.

T