Another Search Insider column that came as a result of my trip down under to SMX. This one isn't a new thought for me, however. It's just the same old me on the same old soapbox:

It’s one of the banes of this industry that we often use the words “strategies” and “tactics” interchangeably. Conferences that fly the strategy banner offer a deep dive into multiple tactical tracks. Sessions that promise cutting edge strategies in fact deliver tactics. Now, I have nothing against tactics. The right tactic can be a beautiful thing, when it’s used to execute on a strategy. But they’re not the same thing.

The Dingoes Ate My Strategy

I went off on this topic at the recent SMX in Sydney. I was asked to present at a session that offered out-of-the-box PPC tactics. I hijacked the session and said that it’s hard to know what out-of-the-box is until you’ve defined the box. Strategy defines the box. If you’re building a house, strategy is the blueprint; tactics are the tools you use to put the house together. Apparently I scared a few Aussies by my impassioned plea not to confuse the two.

The reason for my rant? Because all too often in search we get enamored with a brand new tool and forget to look at the blueprint. This is not a new message for me. Check the byline blurb at the bottom of this column. It’s been the same message since I started writing this column, almost 4 years ago now.

I don’t think anyone disagrees with me that strategy is a good thing. But why does our focus so often slip from the strategic to the tactical? Why do we keep losing sight of the forest for the trees? Rick Tobin, our director of research, came up with one possible reason. Tactics are easy to own and even easier to delegate. They’re a “tick off” item on our to-do list. Strategy requires more thought. It’s a lot slipperier to get hold off.

The First Step is Admitting You Might be Making a Mistake

I tend to take a strategic slant when I present at conferences and shows. And because of that, I think I ask more from my audience. I’m asking them to question what it is they might be doing right now, because it might be the wrong thing. Strategy demands that you ask tough questions of yourself. It challenges your beliefs. And that’s a hard thing to ask of humans. We’re wired to ignore anything that might cause us to change our mind.

I know firsthand how tough it can be to keep focused on your strategy and to execute effectively against it. It’s a constant challenge in my company, and the same is true for every company I know that values strategy. You have to think your way through this stuff. You can’t do it on autopilot.

Tactical Mastery or Strategic Stumbling

It’s a lot easier to focus on a tactic. We like to master things, and you can do this at a tactical level. You can be a great link builder, or PPC manager. You can become the wizard of analytics, or the master multivariate tester. And these are the things you’ll find on the typical search conference agenda. I think it would scare the hell out of most attendees to go to a session titled “Strategic Soul Searching: Are All Your Marketing Efforts in Vain?” To be fair to the show organizers, most attendees come looking for tactics. Almost no one comes looking for strategy. They may think they’re looking for strategy, but they’ve mixed up the terms.

Books like “Good to Great” and “Built to Last,” as well as almost anything by Peter Drucker or Tom Peters, ask you to look at things from a strategic vantage point. Even Covey’s “The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People” provides you with the strategic building blocks for a more effective personal life. In his books, Jim Collins warns that this is not a quick process. Companies can take a decade of dedicated persistent effort to really discover their soul and define their strategic direction. You can pick up a tactic in a 15-minute presentation, but a strategy takes a lot more time.

The Strategic Common Denominator

Personally, I’ve felt that by providing glimpses into user behavior, I can help provide a lens to help see things from the outside in, an essential perspective for strategic evaluation. Part of any strategy in marketing always depends on gaining a deeper understanding of the common denominator, humans. The more years I add to my CV, the more I realize we need to spend some time understanding the weird quirks and traits that make us all too imperfectly and irrationally human. And it’s from that understanding that your strategy will eventually spring forth.

To wrap up for this week, I leave you with a quote from Sun Tzu, the military strategist:

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

Belated posting of the last Search Insider column I did from Down Under.

The frequent flier blitzkrieg continues. This week’s stop, Sydney, Australia for SMX. In the opening keynote, Danny Sullivan asked Google’s Marissa Mayer what keeps her at Google. Her answer was that there are just too many really interesting, really hard questions still to be answered. She likened it to the world of scientific discovery and pegged the current state of search and online as analogous to the 15th or 16th century. Sir Isaac Newton has just discovered gravity.

From a timeline perspective, I think Marissa’s analogy works. There’s no doubt we’re at the early stages of something, but what that something is remains to be seen. The difference between us and Isaac Newton is that Newton was exploring the guiding principles of the real, physical world. We’re building a new world up as we go. More correctly, a new world is emerging organically from the efforts and thoughts of millions of people. It’s a world defined in an ethereal middle space, a world of mind-spawned musings and accomplishments, shared and propelled one packet at a time. We’re not discovering anything, we’re building something entirely new. At any given moment, hundreds of millions of us are making it up as we go along. It’s a Darwinian experiment on a grand, grand scale.

The other difference is that the physical world afforded us a certain leisurely pace of exploration. Apples were falling from trees for millions of years before Newton finally got around to wondering why. Even Darwin had the luxury of time to define his theory of natural selection. Not much happens in the way of evolution in any time scale that we can perceive.

But this online witches’ cauldron we call the Internet moves much quicker. It is a world driven by innovation, and it is the fastest innovators that will not only survive, but prosper. Mindful musing is a luxury we can’t afford. Things move too fast.

Despite the seemingly blank canvas that stretches before us, there are limits to the world we create, and these limits are those imposed on us by our human nature. The virtual world we create must fit within the sphere that defines us as a species. It must not take advantage of our foibles and failings. It must empower the best of us. The human mind is a convoluted, complex mechanism that is only 5% rational. The other 95%, the really fun part that makes us human, brews under the service, messy, murky and sometimes manipulative. And the truly scary part is that we know almost nothing about this dark underbelly of our minds. We’ve discovered much of the world that lives outside our skulls, thanks to Newton, Darwin, Galileo and their scientific brethren. But we’re only beginning to discover the world that sits locked in our three pounds of grey matter.

Humans haven’t really changed much in 250,000 years. Yet man’s greatest creation, our society, has changed by leaps and bounds — and the pace of that change is still accelerating. The creation of the Internet is perhaps the most significant leap forward yet. We are literally redefining the structure we use to build society. This, I suspect, changes everything. Our challenge, then, is to use our technology, our passion and our intellect to create a society that breaks the restrictions imposed on us not just by our physical world, but also by our baser human instincts.

I can understand why Marissa Mayer still wants to get up and go to work in the morning. She’s driven by the same thing that drives many of us who have chosen to dedicate our passion to this new online world that is the biggest group project in history.

Maybe, just maybe, this time we’ll get it right.

SMX Sydney was a great show. Barry Smythe did an awesome job putting the show together, along with some pretty cool introductions, like real time polling, but shows are about people and location, and in this case, you couldn't ask for better in either regard. Rand and Neerav from Oz posted more.

I mentioned at the show that I had never spent so much time on a plane to get to somewhere that felt so much like home. Everyone was amazingly friendly and really interested in anything that we International Speakers (Rand Fishkin, Danny Sullivan, Ciaran Norris, Adam Lasnik, Jane Copland, Ani Babian, Frederick Vallaeys...sorry if I missed anyone) had to say. And when you add in dinner at the Opera House and a real Aussie BBQ under the bridge, well, jaw dropping to say the least.

Also quite enjoyed a trip to Manly Beach with Rand, Geraldine and Jane. I wrapped up my visit with Canadian ex-pat Tom Petryshen and his wife (who comes from my part of BC) for a great dinner of BBQ'd kangaroo and prawns.

Rand called this possibly the best conference he's attended..ever. Organizer Barry Smythe assumed he meant outside of North America. Barry, I think Rand meant that without qualifiers. For us, who made a long journey down to attend, the entire event was amazing.The size, the people and the location combined to make this one a home run.

I must say I'm having fun writing the Human Hardware series on Search Engine Land. What I wanted to do is take some of the inherent behaviors and cognitive limits of humans and explore how this impacts our online interactions. And yes, to me, that's fun!

If, like me, you're interested in the "why" of things, I think you might enjoy this series. I've written 3 installments so far:

Human Hardware: Working Memory

How we use our working memory to make decisions, the capacity limits of working memory, and how working memory and long term memory work together. I take a look at Herbert Simon's work on bounded rationality and satisficing as a shortcut to making decisions.  I also explore Daniel Wegner's theory of transactive memory in this column. Finally, I look at how working memory dictates how we digest search results.

Human Hardware: Men and Women

Humans come in two models: men and women. Despite rampant political correctness, there are distinct differences between us (in case you hadn't noticed). This column looks at some of the cognitive and neurological differences (I tried to keep my comparisons from the neck up) and how it impacts things like shopping, navigating and asking directions, understanding conversations and spending time online. I spend some time outlining gender research differences we've seen in past usability studies.

Human Hardware: Dunbar's Number

In part One of this two part installment, I pose this question: Do we have limits on how many friends we can make? Robin Dunbar, a British anthropologist, believes the answer is yes, and that number is 150, give or take a few. I look at Dunbar's research and reasoning, and how this limit has impacted human evolution and our creation of social networks. I touch on the evolution of language, the Great Leap in human evolution (why we went from throwing rocks to creating art in what was relatively the blink of an eye) and the importance of grooming as a social glue.

I'm pretty pumped about this series, as it ties directly into my book research, so this has been a way to work out a few of the ideas. To be honest, I have no idea how many installments there will be in the series. Along a similar vein, and in case you missed it, you might enjoy the Google Habit series that ran on MediaPost and earlier in this blog. Just check the archives.

Having spent the last two weeks of March in Hawaii, it's now back to work. In way of catch up, here's my Search Insider column from Thursday, with my wireless whining from Waikiki:

Having just dragged my butt off a beach in Hawaii, my mind has not fully settled itself back in the search groove. But I did come to a realization in between snorkeling (highly recommended) and hiking the Na Pali coast in Kauai (even more highly recommended). Mobile is going to change our lives in amazing ways.

I’ve visited this topic  before, but this time, in addition to my beautiful wife and two charming daughter, I traveled with a new companion, a brand new HTC TyTN II with an unlimited data plan. While this may sound “ho-hum” to you Americans, unlimited data is an impossible dream here in Canada. Our mobile providers are still holding us hostage for daring to check emails while on the road. It’s a sad state of affairs for an otherwise civilized country.

All Wired Up And No Place To Go

The combination of 3G speeds, a relatively powerful device and the elimination of worry about a roaming data bill spinning upwards faster than gas prices proved to be a heady and intoxicating combination for me. Unfortunately, I found that although (metaphorically) I was all dressed up, there were still precious few places to go. A couple of times I found myself saying, “surely there must be a WAP site for that” only to find myself trying to negotiate non-mobile-friendly interfaces in a horribly glitchy browser. While the potential was so intoxicating, the reality fell far short.

This was a topic I touched on briefly in my opening remarks at the last Search Insider Summit. Mobile is the place where discontinuous innovation is most likely. There must have been a dozen times over the last two weeks where I said, “it would be so great if someone could…” and completed the sentence with something that seemed so obvious to me yet apparently was unavailable at this time.

So Much Potential, So Little Functionality

Now, much as I’d like to say that it’s my incredible vision that brought all these great possibilities to light, I suspect these are not undiscovered ideas. I’m sure that many companies are sitting on them, just waiting for the right convergence of device horsepower, input and output performance enhancements, bandwidth and standardization to roll these mobile killer apps out. Once some of the current bottlenecks are solved, or at least relaxed, I believe there will be a rush of mobile innovation that’s been sitting on a shelf, biding its time.

Here’s just one example. While on Kauai, I started dreaming of actually owning property there. I indulge in this little fantasy (the huge gap between my income and Kauai property prices unquestionably defines this as a fantasy) ever year. So I did a little searching on Zillow.com just to see how out of reach my dreams were. Now, on the laptop, Zillow is a rich information resource for real estate shoppers. But when you go mobile, its functionality is limited to texting an address to Zillow, and it sending back the current market price of the property as a return text message. While intriguing, this falls far short of Zillow’s total online experience. How amazing would it be to drive through neighborhoods, GPS-enabled PDA or smartphone in hand, and have maps instantly updated with available properties and details. You can almost hear the words coming out of my mouth: “It would be so great if…” Well, you get the idea.

Google: A Map In The Right Direction

I used Google Maps on the mobile a lot while I was away, and I have to admit, I’m pretty impressed with the functionality that has been squeezed into this little app. But we’re barely scratching the surface of what’s possible. Using it to look for a good Mexican restaurant while hiding out from a downpour in Waikiki was an experience that would have driven a lesser man to tears. It’s not really Google’s fault, it’s the lack of online, mobile-friendly presence on the part of almost every business on the planet. Yes, I’ve heard all the market rationalizations about early adoption, critical mass of markets, bandwidth required to mobilize local advertisers…yadda, yadda, yadda. But dammit, the potential is just so tantalizing!

So, my expectations of mobile nirvana fell a little flat, but you’ll be happy to hear I made a full recovery after intensive and repeated beach and Mai Tai therapy.

Mahalo!

Tomorrow, we're kicking off the first in a series of webinars on a topic near and dear to our hearts, B2B search marketing. What we hope to do is provide some insights from our user research, our real world experiences, and also insights from special guests. The first is Coaxing the Conversion, and features my partner, Bill Barnes, as the moderator, with yours truly, Rick Tobin, our Director of Research and special guest Ben Hanna from Business.com as our guest. We'll look at what it takes to successful start a relationship with a prospect once you have enticed them to visit your website.

It's a pleasure to welcome Ben. I had a chance to meet Ben a few weeks ago at SMX in Santa Clara and we had a great chance to chat about a number of things. Ben's a smart guy and has a wealth of knowledge. Make sure you take the opportunity to tap into his expertise. By the way, Rick's no slouch either when it comes to insight, and I've been known to toss out the odd pearl. As an interesting twist, if you want us to take a look at your site, indicate so on the webinar registration form at http://www.b2bexpertseries.com/ (by clicking on the button, you'll be taking to Webex's registration page)

Through the rest of the spring, we'll be looking at how to maximize the quality of your leads coming from search engines, setting up analytics and taking search in-house versus outsourcing it. Then, in the fall, we'll be picking up the series again with some other great topics.

Finally, the last column on this subject! This ran today in the Search Insider on MediaPost:

When I started this series of columns, I had no intention of making it a series. But now, with the fifth (and final) installment, it looks like I may finally break this particular habit. It’s been fascinating for me. Hopefully it’s been equally interesting for you.

We Develop Strings of Habits

In last week’s column, I talked about environmental cueing and reinforcement. Here, cues in our environment (the ubiquitous toolbar search box, for example) trigger a habit, and the expected outcome (the delivery of relevant results) reinforces the habit. This creates a sustaining cycle.

But there’s one other aspect of habits that we should look at. We tend to develop habits as strings of events. One environment cue might trigger a series of actions. The classic example is those who need a cigarette when they have a drink. Some recent research paints a fairly bleak picture of North American society and shows how obsessed we are with habit-inducing cues. The “why” question poised was why French people were less obese than Americans, despite a diet high in fat. It turns out one major reason why is that Americans let external cues, such as which TV show is on, drive their eating patterns. We always have a bowl of Chunky Chocolate ice cream while we watch “Desperate Housewives.” The French tend to eat when they’re hungry, and stop eating when they’re full. For the French, eating is a joy. For Americans, it’s a habit.

Swimming Upstream

As I mentioned before, to break a habit, you have to intercept before the habitual behavior, rather than try to educate and modify after the fact. And the less thought required to execute the behavior, the harder the habit will be to break. If your habit takes a few seconds to do, the opportunities to intercept and kick in the rational brain are minimal. This provides a distinct challenge to anyone looking to usurp Google’s search crown. Searching is becoming easier than ever.

The competitors have to look at that split second that exists between the awareness of the need for more information and the instinctive move to the nearest search box to launch the query. It’s in that tiny sliver of time that the opportunity to break the Google habit exists.

Searchis Interruptis

So, given the fleeting nature of this opportunity, how do you grab it? One way is to anticipate the need of search before it happens. This is the implicit query work that Microsoft was experimenting with sometime ago. As you work on a task, potential search queries are monitored in the background and are presented to the user. But a constantly shifting window of potential searches would probably drive us all batty.

Another way is to integrate search at an application or OS level, making search even easier and inserting a habit-breaking context switch into that tiny sliver of indecision that exists between awareness and Google.

Attack the Weakest Links

But even integration of search at this level won’t be enough. Remember, we tend to give the advantage to the incumbent. We actively look for reasons to maintain the habit, and we ignore information that runs counter to our habitual choice. Even if a search alternative is one click less to get to, that alternative still has to provide a significant reason to switch. They not only have to beat Google at the game of search, they have to do it in a decisive way. For this reason, a competitor has to attack Google’s user base at the weakest point, the ones that are using Google because it’s handy, not the Google loyalists.

True User-Centricity

This brings us to my last strategy for breaking the Google habit: a truly user-centric search tool.

Up to this point, verticalization in search has taken one of two forms. Either engines have attacked a topic category (i.e. Business.com and B2B, Lawyers.com and legal services, Expedia.com and travel) or a type of content (i.e. Blinkx and Youtube for video, Technorati for blog posts). These approaches tend to be vulnerable because we are creatures of habit. Generally, we prefer to use one place to launch our searches. We’re already using Google for most of our searches, so if it can provide an equivalent experience to these vertical engines, it can quickly assimilate the traffic and squeeze the verticals out.

This is not as easy as it sounds. Google has yet to provide an equivalent experience in most of its verticals, but now that it appears that the default design of the search results page is no longer a sacred cow, I would expect the functionality gap to close quickly.

But what if we took a different approach? What if rather than verticalizing around a topic or content bucket, we verticalized around a type of user? What if we maximized the search experience for millennial males or female baby boomers? The verdict on personalized search seems to be that a one-size-fits-all solution is a long way off on the horizon, but an intermediate step might be to tailor an engine for a segment that shares similar needs and expectations. By focusing on a niche strategy, you might be able to break the Google habit, one segment at a time. In this way, you might be able to provide the discontinuous innovation needed to catch people upstream, before they get swept away with the Google tide.

I'm kicking off another series in the Just Behave column on Search Engine Land. I'm calling it the Human Hardware series, and it it I'll be exploring some of the inherent traits of humans and how they affect our online interactions. In the first installment, last Friday, I looked at working memory, channel capacity and satisficing, area I've explored in past posts. Here's a brief excerpt:

As people start to dive into the human genome, it’s somewhat startling to find the lack of diversity in the human gene pool. As different as we all think we are, we actually are alike in many more ways. We share a remarkable similarity in our physiological and neurological make up. Added to this is the fact that there are several inherent traits we all share, the result of thousands of years of evolutionary tweaking. There are absolutely deviations from the norm, but as a quick glance at any bell curve will tell you, for any given trait or characteristic of humanity, including intelligence, loyalty, physical strength or the ability to juggle, most of us cluster around the center line, otherwise known as the norm. It’s the inherent limits of the vehicle we inhabit, our body.

And lest you start feeling too superior, we actually share 98.4% of our genetic material with chimpanzees, our closest evolutionary relative. There is more genetic diversity between two breeds of dogs than there is between us and the average chimp. In fact, apes and chimpanzees are genetically more divergent than chimps and humans. Try wrapping your mind around that one on your next trip to the zoo.

As we start looking at our success in predicting behavior, the peak of the bell curve for our target population is where we have to start. It helps to understand the human hardware issues, which form the foundation of our understanding of predicted behavior. From here, we can tilt our strategies to accommodate diversions in either direction from the norm.

Why is the human gene pool so shallow? It’s because we all come from the same place, a relatively small population of modern humans in Africa, some 150,000 years ago. Recent research has shown that genetic diversity lessens as we get further and further from Africa. And one particularly interesting study speculates that all blue eyed people come from the same common ancestor. Our family tree has remarkably few branches if you go back far enough.

The rest of the column can be read over at Search Engine Land. Next week I'll be running Part Two, looking at the differences of men and women.

Another installment in the continuing "Breaking the Google Habit" Series. This is from last Thursday's Search Insider Column. When I wrote the first one, I actually thought it would be a one column topic. Now, four columns later, I'm still not done. It's a fascinating subject...

Let's imagine that my ongoing series about the forming of habits (installment 1, installment 2 and installment 3) has so captured your curiosity that you want to find out more. You're reading this column from your computer. You make the decision to find more information about breaking a habit. Now, let's slow down time and look at the steps. There, in the upper left of your browser, is the Google toolbar. Or maybe you have the Google sidebar in the lower right of your window. Perhaps you've got Google's homepage bookmarked. Whatever the shortcut, you don't suddenly stop and think, "Gee, for this search what would be the optimal search engine to use?" No, without thinking, you go right up to the handiest search box and key in "breaking habits."

It's All About the Cues….

In psychological terms, what we've just described is a stable environment. The layout of your window is something you're familiar with. You don't have to think about it, you just do it. And the vast majority of times, this works for you. You have created an expectation of success. The cues remind you, below the level of rational consciousness, that this course of behavior generally produces the desired outcome. And each successful search reinforces that.

This cueing and reinforcement cycle is a powerful factor. Several academic studies (see Verplanken & Wood for a review of the literature in this area) have shown that habitual use has two important lock-in mechanisms that perpetuate the behavior. First of all, expectations of success curb our desire to search for alternatives. All those millions of advertising dollars from Ask or Microsoft, and the ads they bought are falling on deaf ears.

Secondly, the one type of information we do pay attention to is information that confirms our habitual bias. Because we have an expectation of success, our ears perk up when we hear things that confirm and reinforce that expectation. We are looking to remain consistent with the habit, rather than break it. This is true even with something as insidious as smoking. Imagine how powerful this would be with a benign behavior like using a search engine. Millions of dollars of TV ads can be trumped by one person telling us that Google is also their favorite engine because it always delivers what they're looking for.

The Forgiving Habitual User

Further, even when we have a less-than-ideal experience, our expectation framework tends to "cut it some slack," mentally averaging out the experiences and rounding it up in the incumbent's favor. We become pretty forgiving of our habitual choice and hyper-critical of the alternatives.

So, given the formidable odds against breaking a habit (remember, in most cases, habits are good things that reduce our need to think through everything, so evolution has a vested interest in keeping them in place) there are still circumstances when it can happen.

Ch..Ch..Ch..Changes…

One of these is when there's a disruption to the stable environment. When we have to adjust to a new circumstance, we're also open to new cues that go into the new environment. In the non-virtual world, this would be moving to a new home, especially in a new city or starting a new job. In the virtual world confined to our 21-inch monitor, it would be buying a new computer, upgrading our operating system or switching to a new browser. Any of these events, or a combination of them, offers an opportunity to search providers to make themselves one of the new environment cues. There's been a disruption in the typical flow that used to lead to acting without thinking, so there's an opportunity to cause people to think about the alternatives.

One tremendous opportunity to get in on the ground floor of our adaption of a new environment is presented by our increasing use of mobile. The even smaller real estate on the mobile screen represents a tremendous opportunity to put a stake in the ground and start the habit-forming cycle. Google already has a head start in this area, but it's far less than what they've established on the desktop.

Next week, more ways for competitors to disrupt the Google habit, including what it might take to overcome the incumbent's advantage.

Catching up on my Search Insider Posts. This was last week's installment.

What will it take to beat the Google habit? There's billions of dollars that hang on the answer to that question. My last two columns looked at the nature of habits and how they can lead to an advantage for incumbents by "locking in" customers or users.

Before we look at some possible answers, it's important to understand how and why previous attempts at breaking habits have fallen short in an area where far more academic work has been done: health care (Verplanken & Wood, 2006).

Educational campaigns have proven to have little effect on changing habitual behavior. In fact, studies have shown that these campaigns can actually trigger an increase in the unwanted behaviors! Oops, that wasn't supposed to happen.

The frustration of physicians who are battling unhealthy lifestyle choices in their patients was perfectly summed up in an address given by John McKinley to the American Heart Association over 30 years ago.

"You know," McKinley said, "sometimes it feels like this. There I am standing by the shore of a swiftly flowing river, and I hear the cry of a drowning man. So I jump into the river, put my arms around him, pull him to shore and apply artificial respiration. Just when he begins to breathe, there is another cry for help. So I jump into the river, reach him, pull him to shore, apply artificial respiration, and then just as he begins to breathe, another cry
for help. So back in the river again, reaching, pulling, applying, breathing and then another yell. Again and again, without end, goes the sequence. You know, I am so busy jumping in, pulling them to shore, applying artificial respiration, that I have no time to see who the hell is upstream pushing them all in."

This has led to a reexamination of the "downstream" method of altering behavior; trying to rationally convince people to change their behavior after it's already become a habit, for example, with education campaigns. The fundamental problem here is, you're trying to apply a rational solution to an irrational problem. We don't think about habits, we just do them. That's the very definition of a habit.

The Strength and Cost of Habits

There are two other components in habitual behavior that have to be understood: the strength of the habit and the cost of executing the habit. Both factor into how hard the habit will be to change. The strength is how closely habits are tied to our personal beliefs, good or bad. If we stop at Starbucks every day because we absolutely love everything about Starbucks, that's going to be a very hard habit to break. Smoking ups the ante with an actual physical addiction.

Also, how much does it cost us to continue the habit? It I have to go four blocks out of my way to go to Starbucks, that has a personal cost to me. If it's right on my way to work, that's different.

Habitual Use of Search

So, let's wrap up this week's column with a summary of what we've learned about habits, and apply it to search:

• You typically can't change habits by a rational appeal after a habit is formed. This explains the failure of every television campaign for search engines looking to grow market share.
• The strength of habit is a big factor in how likely the habit is to stay in place. So, if you're looking to steal users from Google by breaking their Google habit, you're going to be looking to the those folks that use Google because it's handy, not the ones that have six Google T-shirts hanging in their closet.
• And finally, you're going to have to look for a way to catch users before they use Google by intercepting them upstream. The reason Yahoo has been able to maintain its market share over the past few years has a lot more to do with the scope of its presence and the fact that the company can put a Yahoo search box in front of more people before they can get to Google, and a lot less to do with the quality of the search experience. And that's also why Microsoft's share has eroded, as more and more default home pages are being switched from MSN.

Next week, in the series that may never end (talk about habit-forming), we look at how challengers to the Google search crown can hope to break the habit. Hint: All the clues point in one direction — upstream!