October 2007 Entries

In 2006 Wired Editor Chris Anderson released The Long Tail, and suddenly we were finding long tails in everything. The swoop of the power law distribution curve was burned on our consciousness, and search was no exception. Suddenly, the hot new strategy was to move into the long tail of search, those thousands of key phrases that individually may only bring a handful of visitors, but in aggregate, can bring more than the head phrases. At Enquiro, we were no exception. But lately, I haven't heard as much about long tail campaigns. And I think it's because our thinking was a little flawed.

One of the key elements of a long tail marketplace is that there can't be a scarcity bottleneck. Shelf space has to be unlimited, production, distribution, etc. The economics of supporting a long tail have to make sense. There has to be little to no overhead in making a vast selection available to the market. The ideal example is digital entertainment. Once an MP3 is encoded, the only overhead for the distributor is a couple of megabytes of storage capacity.

That's just not true in search management. It takes time to set up a campaign for a keyword. It takes time to organically optimize for it. There's significant campaign management overhead associated with search. From a resource perspective. search marketing is expensive, and as anyone who's tried to recruit a search marketer can tell you, there is no abundance mentality at play here. Sure there's thousands of keyphrases that may potentially bring one or two visitors a month, and if you add them up, it would be hundreds of thousands of potential leads, but we just can't move from the head to the tail because we don't have the time.

Engines tried to open up the bottle neck by offering broad match, but results from broad match campaigns are dramatically less than spectacular. In many cases, we needed to go back to the more granular control that comes with exact match to keep performance levels where we needed them to be.

But in perusing some of our spreadsheets from past studies, and with Anderson's Long Tail curve fresh in my mind, I found another long tail in search. In several studies, we've tracked click throughs by position. Look what happens when you take the most popular click through position, the number one organic spot, and then work down by position:

As you can see, we have another long tail. Now, due to the scale of the graph, it looks like the tail goes to zero. This isn't the case, but by the time we get to the second page of results, we tend to hit percentages that are fractions of 1%. As long tails go, this is skinnier than most, showing the power of position on the first page of results.

But now let's combine the two long tails. If you take the head being a #1 organic ranking for your most popular phrase, and work down from there, the results get quite dramatic. For the sake of this example, I'll move down one position for each keyword. Here's a table showing the numbers:

Now, let's plot that on a graph:

Given that search is a resource hog in terms of manpower, I argue that we'd be far better working our way up the tail rather than down it. And by moving up the tail, I mean the click through by position tail. By moving up the page, even a position or two, with relatively popular keywords, you can leverage the compounding effect of the two curves and dramatically improve your campaign performance.

For quite some time, I've been wondering if my user "Spidey-Sense" was wonky. From everything I saw about the Ask 3-D interface, it should have been gaining marketshare. Also, for all my preaching about build a better user experience and you'll reap the rewards, Ask's reaping appeared to be a little on the grim side, lingering at about 3.5% of the market. But finally, according to a recent post by Bill Tancer over at Hitwise, my instincts seem to be back on track. Take a look at this graph:

Ask is finally making a move. And their "share of search" has moved up from 3.49% of executed searches in August to 4.32% of searches in October, a bump of 23.7%. That's huge. Bill wonders if it has anything to do with the ads Ask is running. I suspect it has a lot more to do with a great interface and some user generated buzz that's beginning to catch some ears. Michael Ferguson and his team did exactly what they needed to do, shake things up by thinking about what users want.

Ask's strategy has always been to be your first second choice. They don't ever expect to knock Google out of the lead, but what they want to do is be the place you turn when you find Google just isn't cutting it. So their move to 3D made a lot of sense. For certain types of searches, notably entertainment or discovery searches, users want something more than Google's spartan, click and get out interface. They want a stickier, richer, more visual appearance. They want Ask 3D. We found the interface tested pretty well in our recent Search:2010 Eye Tracking study for entertainment based searches.

In fact, Marissa Mayer at Google paid Michael and his team the ultimate compliment when she mentioned the likelihood of Google moving to more of a portal, encyclopedia type format sometime in the future. So..that would make Google more like..Ask!

I will be watching with interest Ask's marketshare numbers over the next 6 months. Again according to Hitwise, the jump regains all the marketshare they've lost in the last year, and puts them a lot closer to the current number 3, Microsoft, who is sitting just 3 and a half points ahead at 7.83%. Microsoft has been on a continuous slide for the past year, dropping 3 full points. Yahoo seems perpetually stuck between 22 and 23%. Google has captured most of the fallout, adding those 3 points to their marketshare numbers. But Google's .5% drop in the last month seems to have gone directly to Ask, showing that the "First Second Choice" strategy might be paying off. Like Jim Lanzone said to me once, "Our goal is to take our 20 million users, who are currently using us twice a month, and bump that up to four times a month. That doubles our market share," At the time Lanzone made the comment, Ask was sitting with about 2.5% marketshare. If you look at the table below, Ask has just about hit their goal.

But I don't think Ask is going to stop there. Within 6 months, you're going to be reading stories all over the web about how Ask bumped Microsoft out of the #3 spot. It will be David vs Goliath, or in this case, Barry (Diller) vs Bill (Gates). Ask is on a roll, and thanks to Bill Tancer's revisiting of the numbers, I have regained enough confidence to say, "mark my words".

Amy Curtis McIntyre, the founding CMO of JetBlue, and a guest speaker at last week's Google B to B Summit in New York, unveiled a new barometer to measure the appeal of your brand. I called it the JetBlue Index in the title of the post, but to give credit where credit is due, it should be called the Curtis-McIntyre Index. Basically, this is how it works:

"If people steal your shit, your brand is in good shape"

Amy was talking about some of the things they introduced through her time with JetBlue, like inflight yoga cards and other promotional materials, and how they had to keep ordering new ones because people kept stealing them. After getting a few complaints from other top execs, she said, "Let me get this right. We produce these things to get people's attention. People like them so much they actually steal them. And you're telling me this is a bad thing? Give me the damn phone. I'll order as much of this shit as people can jam in their purse." (I probably paraphrased, but I think I got the intent right).

Advertising is all about connecting your internal message with an external audience. If you do it well, it might catch some attention. If you do it extraordinarily well, people might talk about it. If you hit it out of the park, people actually want to keep it. JetBlue hit a home run. It means people felt so strongly about the brand and the message resonated so strongly with them, they had to take it. This is the ultimate challenge. Build a brand message that people use as an indentity badge. Give them something with your brand on it that people can hold up and say, "see, this is me. This is what I'm about."

So, taking that to the next step, as part of the BrandSense Survey conducted by Martin Lindstrom and Millward Brown, they actually asked people the brand they were most likely to get tattooed on them. This is the ultimate alignment with brand, a permanent brand badge. It's literally putting some skin in the game.

Here were the top "tattoo" brands

Okay, Harley I can understand. Even Disney. But Google? I guess it just shows how important search is to our lives. But more importantly, each of these brands says something about the people that choose to become brand advocates. They're like personality short hand. If I have a Harley tattoo, you probably know more about me just by knowing that. Likewise with Rolex or Absolut Vodka. Personally, I wouldn't be going out of my way to spend quality time with any of these individuals, but at least they warned my by tattooing a sign saying "I'm a dickhead" where I can see it, saving me the trouble and time of finding out for myself.

I had a friend in college who used to say he could know everything he needed to know about a person just by knowing what their favorite Beatle was (he was a John Lennon himself). Much as we all like to think we're complex and multi-dimensional, it's surprising how such big parts of our personalities fall so easily into common "buckets". The first time I did a Myers-Briggs test I was a little spooked out by the whole process.

So..I asked myself. Is there a brand I feel that strongly about? Not really, but then, I'm a very complex individual. I might need two tattoos.

The one thing that's interesting about Facebook is that it's really a framework in search of a purpose. What's not interesting about Facebook is that Microsoft just bought a tiny sliver of it for 240 million dollars.

The problem with the world today is that we all try to jump on an online bandwagon without really seeing where it's going. As the usage numbers stack up, we pile on, determined to hang on for the ride, whereever the destination might be. It remains to be seen if Facebook can avoid the fate of the online community platform. There's a lot of headstones in this particular cemetary, including Orkut, Friendster and MySpace (sure, MySpace is still breathing, but barely). I've been in a few meetings recently where everybody is talking about how to tap into social networking. I think the thing that's missing is that social networking isn't a killer app. It's human behavior, and that comes with some challenges. Humans are unpredictable.

Here's one way we're unpredictable. The same group that made Friendster a hot online community, Orkut the next big thing and MySpace the next Google moves from community to community, lighting a fire and then moving on, leaving nothing but a burned out shell. These are the online "nomads" who are always pushing the envelope. Green fields are their motivation, but once main street gets a little civilized (i.e. boring) they pick up stakes and move on. When the dollars chase the next hot online community, this is the gang they're chasing. Good luck!

Here's the second way we're unpredictable. Even if we're not all online "nomads", we have a tiny little sliver of us that's curious. We have to check out the new hot online neighbourhood. Think of it as visiting a show home. We want to look at the furniture, oooh and aaah over the decorating, but we have no intention of actually moving there. The online translation would be registering to become a member, visiting once or twice, and then never visiting again. So here, we have a compounding effect. The nomads visit  and start creating buzz (everyone loves the nomads, because they're just so leading edge). Then the tire kickers (that's the rest of us poor schmucks) visit for a look. Suddenly you have a hockey stick registration chart that everyone drools over. You've got the traffic, now you just have to monetize it! Investment and acquisition offers pour in. Life is good. Two Porsches in every driveway. But then the nomads move on to the next green field (Rule One of Online Communities, There's always another Green Field), the tire kickers don't come back (they're checking out the show home in the new hot community) and the hockey stick breaks in half.

And here's the third way we're unpredictable. We like to pick communities that make sense to us, that do something for us, that make us feel at home. We'll choose the community, the community won't choose us. This manifests itself in a number of ways. Every brand is trying to create an online community around their brand. I don't want to belong to a brand based community. Most people I know don't. Certainly not if the brand is something like potato chips or underarm deodorant. Maybe some one some where has enough time in their day to squander some of it on www.nevergetcaughtoffguard.com (I kid you not, a viral game put out by the good folks at Right Guard) but it sure the hell ain't me. Harley riders frequent an online community, but in true Harley fashion, they took over the joint and basically kicked the landlords out. No, we create communities where it makes sense. Netflix is a community. Amazon is a community. TripAdvisor is a community. eBay is a community. They're communities because they give us a chance to connect with other that share our interests while we're doing something that's important to us. The community aspect just evolves out of our desire to see what other people think about the things we're interested in.

And there lies Facebook's challenge. Being a cool community isn't enough. Being a hot community isn't enough. And communities online are rather amorphous. As I said above, communities can form in the click of a mouse online. We don't need a lot of infrastructure to start connecting. And we don't tend to stick in one place long. But..and this is a big one...if Facebook can create an open ecosystem where developers create functionality within the community rather than outside it, it has a chance. It won't be the fact that it's a community that keeps Facebook alive. It will be that it attracted enough functional critical mass to one place. It's heading in the right direction, but we'll see if it gets there soon enough.

I'm just plowing my way through Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat". The "plowing through" comment is no reflection on Mr. Friedman's writing ability, just on the sheer heft of the book. It's several hundred pages long. Friedman talks about several dirty little secrets that are holding America back from maintaining it's lead position in the global market, amongst them an education gap and an ambition gap. I tend to agree. I think North America is becoming complacent and is falling victim to an overwhelming sense of entitlement. I've always believe we have a rude awakening coming, and all signs are pointing it being just around the corner. One only has to visit China or India to feel the sheer momentum, driven by ambition and capitalist desire, to be struck by the difference in intensity you feel there and here. The immigrant fueled work ethic that made our society the leader is barely an ember now. Up until recently, that drive was fueled by a flood of top level immigrants from China, Korea, and India, but increasingly, those candidates are choosing to stay home, thanks to the connectiveness of Friedman's Flat World.

But we also have to realize that we do have some tremendous advantages still in North America, thanks to a highly developed and largely transparent market, relatively free from the friction of bureacracy or corruption. It's not perfect, but it's much better than in some other markets. This point was made clear to us with our recent foray into China.

We won a contract to do an eye tracking study in China, but it meant taking our eye tracking equipment with us. Knowing this could cause undue interest on the part of a Chinese customer official, we did our due diligence and spent several minutes on the phone with our local Chinese consulate to make sure this wouldn't be an issue. We were assured over and over again that this would be a simple case of taking equipment in and out of the country, just like taking a lap top. "No problem" we were told.

So, we sent off our researcher, who luckily is Chinese and who speaks the language, and anticipated no problems. This, of course, was naive on our part. Sure enough, the customs official in China took one look at the large case with the odd looking monitor inside and threw up a red flag. The monitor was impounded. Jess, our researcher, with the help of the client, quickly got a government clearance form with all the appropriate stamps in place indicating that "one eye tracker" was cleared for entry into China. Jess went back to the customs official with paper in hand. She actually had the case in her hands when the official wanted to take another look at the equipment. "Hold it", he said, "that's not an eye tracker, that's a monitor." Jess tried to explain that the monitor was an eye tracker. It was too no avail. Tears, long explanations, pointing out a brochure, it was all for naught. Once Communist bureacrats make up their mind, there's precious little wiggle room.

So, the eye tracker is still impounded. The study if 4 days behind schedule. The client is frustrated. We're frustrated. And it's all because of a petty bureacrat and a serpentine system that no one, certainly not a westerner, can figure out. The world may be flat, but that doesn't make it any less convoluted and complex. In fact, the flattening just brings the ugly mess inside closer to the surface.

Following up on the theme of the rewiring of our brains, is the internet making us smarter consumers as well? There certainly seems to be evidence pointing in that direction.

A study by ScanAlert  found that the average online shopper in 2005 took 19 hours between first visiting a store and completing a transaction. In 2007, that jumped almost 79% to 34 hours. We're taking longer to make up our minds. And we're also doing our homework. Deloitte's Consumer Products group recently released research saying 62 percent of consumers read consumer written product reviews on the Internet, and of those, more than 8 in 10 are directly influenced by the reviews.

In James Surowiecki's Wisdom of Crowds, he believes that large groups, thinking independently with access to a diversity of information, will always make a better collective decision than the smartest individual in the group. Isn't the Internet wiring this wisdom into more and more purchases? When we access these online reviews, we're in fact coming to collective decisions about a product, built on hundreds or thousands of individual experiences. As the network expands, we benefit from the diversity of all those opinions and probably get a much more accurate picture of the quality of a product than we ever could from vendor supplied information alone. The marketplace votes for their choice, and the best product should theoretically emerge as the winner.

Of course, nothing works perfectly all of the time. As Surowiecki points out, communication can be an inexact and imperfect process, and information cascades based on faulty inputs can spread faster than ever online. But it's also true that if a cascade leads to rapid adoption of an inferior product, we'll discover we've been "had" faster and this news can also spread quicker. The connections of online make for a much faster dissemination of information based on experience than ever before, ensuring that the self correcting mechanisms of the marketplace kick into gear faster.

There's a pass along effect happening here as well. For social networking buffs, you've probably heard of Granovetter's "Weak Ties". Social networks are made up of dense, highly connected clusters, i.e. families, close friends, co-workers. The social ties within these clusters are strong ties. But spanning the clusters are "weak ties" between more distant acquaintances. The ability for word to spread depends on these weak ties. What the internet does is exponentially increase the number of weak ties, wiring thousands of clusters together into much bigger networks than were ever possible before. This allows word of mouth to travel not only in the physical world but also in the virtual. I looked at a fascinating follow up study to Granovetter's where Jonathan Frenzen and Kent Nakamoto also looked at the value of the information and the self interest of the individual and their "strong ties" within a cluster as a factor in how quickly word of mouth passes through a network.

Deloitte's study graphically illustrates the weak tie/strong tie effect. 7 out of 10 of the consumers who read reviews share them with friends, family or colleagues, moving the information that comes through the weak ties of the internet into each cluster, where it spreads rapidly thanks to the efficiency of strong ties. This effect pumps up the power of word of mouth by several orders of magnitude.

But are we also becoming more socially aware in our shopping? The research by Deloitte also seems to indicate this. 4 out of 10 consumers said they were swayed by "better for you" ingredients or components, eco-friendly usage and sourcing, and eco-friendly production or packaging. The internet wires us into communities, so it's not surprising that we become more sensitive to the collective health of those communities in the process.

What all these leads to is a better informed consumer, who's not reliant on marketing messaging coming from the manufacturer or the retailer. And that should make us all smarter.

I have to start out by thanking Nico Brooks and Jess Gao. Without intending to, they both provided me more than enough fodder for a rather lengthy column in Seach Engine Land on Friday.

Nico is the Chief Search Strategist at Atlas. Jess is our intern at Enquiro, who's currently working towards her doctorate, specializing in cognitive psychology. Through different paths, they both gave me some major brain melting ideas to chew over. I'm still digesting, but you can catch the thought process in action on my column.

But consider this. What if our brains are being rewired by the internet? Some of our behaviors are innate. They're our OEM operating software, put there by the manufacturer. Flight or fight. The need to procreate. The appreciation of beauty. This stuff is hardwired.

But some of our behaviors are learned. We've developed them as we go. The things sit in our temporary memory caches, and we can adjust them if they're no longer working. The thing that started all this was how we learn to navigate a physical environment. First we look for landmarks, then we memorize routes, then we put the two together to create a cognitive map. Nico's suspicion (and Nico, I hope I'm capturing the essence of the idea accurately) is that our need to identify landmarks and even our ability to memorize routes is probably innate. It's just how we are programmed to get around. But cognitive mapping, at least in the essentially rectangular grid pattern that is common in the Cartesian coordinate model, is a learned behavior. Rectangles have no place in the n dimensional space of online, so as we spend more time navigating online, will we change our mapping process?

Then, with Jess, we had a great chat about how we perceive things, especially ads. There's a great introduction to selective perception that I would urge you to check out. In recent studies we've done at Enquiro, one of the interesting findings has been that the more intrusive the ad, the less it seems to work. It registers high in the first stage of perception, stimulation, and manages to succeed in the second, registration, but fails in the last two stages, organization and interpretation.

Other conversations I had this week, that didn't make it into either of the columns. On Thursday I was in New York for Google's B to B Summit and had a chance to chat with Mark Martel, who supports the B to B Tech Sales Vertical at Google. Mark has a healthy intellectual curiosity and I always enjoy chatting with him. We discussed schemas and how important they are in the process of perception. Then, on Friday, I was in Toronto chatting with the Yahoo Canada gang, including Maor Daniels and Adina Zointz (what a great name, literally covering everything from A to Z!) and we talked about how quickly we're learning to judge the authenticity of content online. It's as if our bullshit filters are more finely tuned than ever.

I'm definitely on a riff here, but there's a lot of threads coming together. Even in someone of my ever upwards creeping years (I'm 46) I suspect my synapses are under construction. Old routes are being torn out and new ones are being built. And with my daughters, many of the paths are being built differently right from the start. The routes that were so important to me in grade school, times tables, rote memorization, etc, are becoming overgrown with weeds through lack of use. But new routes I never even thought of, like how to do homework, carry on an online chat and watch the TV with one eye, are being upgraded into major turnpikes. Multitasking is a major operational imperative now, and selective perception is kicking into overdrive.

Anyway, to further dive into some of the things on my mind, here's some of the columns where I'm beginning to open up some of these ideas to the fresh, online air:

Infomediating a Broken Marketplace - a look at Hagel and Singers Infomediary model from their book Net Worth. Is Google aiming to be the ultimate match maker in the marketplace?

4000 Ads a Day, and Counting - Part One of the Infomediary Doubleheader, looking at the disconnect between customers who just want the facts, and advertisers that just want to control our buying habits

Some Big Ideas for a Friday - Some musings about how we perceive advertising, based on recent studies we conducted, and how we might be remapping the perception process

How We Navigate Our Online Landscape - The original exploration of landmark, route and survey knowledge and how it may map (or not) to how we navigate our online space

And please, do me a favor. This is all stuff I want to explore further in the book. If you think I'm full of bullshit, call me on it. Share your thoughts. Post a comment. Start a dialogue. I know it's a pain in the ass posting comments on blogs because of spam, but PLEEASSSE take a few moments to do so. Or drop me an email.

I'm just waiting in JFK after attending Google's B2B Summit in New York and just had to drop a quick post. The highlight of the day was a keynote by Amy Curtis-McIntyre, the founding CMO of JetBlue airlines. Now, I shared a podium some time ago with David Neeleman, the (until recently) CEO of JetBlue and I can't imagine an odder couple than the brash New York sass of Amy and the quiet Mormon values of Neeleman, but they made it work and created a phenomenal brand success story in the process.

For me, it was a particular pleasure to meet Amy, and I already made sure I lined up an interview to find out more about the amazing JetBlue story. Companies like this, that realize a brand promise to a consumer is sacrosanct, fascinate me. If you ever get a chance to hear Amy present (she's now a surburban mom in Chicago) make sure you don't miss it. She's right up on my list of favorite speakers with Guy Kawasaki, and there's an amazing degree of resonance in their messages. By the way, Guy's also on my hit list for an interview at some point.

I’ve been terribly negligent on blog posts lately.

I have a number of excuses, but the main one is that sometime last year, I thought it might be a good idea to write a book. I’m not sure what the hell possessed me, but it’s been something that’s been planted in my brain for a long time. Moreover, I didn’t want to write a book about how to do search marketing, or even how we interact with search engines. No, I wanted to write a “big idea” book.

For most of last year, I toyed with the idea but did little else. Earlier this year, I began doing some research and roughed out the concept of the book, but still had little to show for my efforts. Then, this June, I realized that unless I actually started working on it, the book would never “write itself”. So I made myself a promise to spend 10 hours a week working on it. This promise went off the rails in July and August, but I’m slowly making up the lost time and hope to get in all the promised hours by the end of the year.

So, you ask, “what is this book about?” I’ve come to suspect my talent is to see the threads of big ideas and tie them together. I have a voracious appetite for understanding what makes people tick and then trying to apply that to what makes some advertising work and some bomb.

Having been in advertising for a quarter century (aaargghh!) I’ve always been looking from the inside out. In the past few months, I’ve stepped outside the industry to look from the outside in. And I have to tell you, I’m not liking what I see. In fact, the more research I do (that’s what I’ve been doing) the more pissed off I’m getting. Advertisers are an arrogant bunch of soulless bastards. And unfortunately, for the past 25 years, I’ve been one of them.

Of course, as with any sweeping statement, there are exceptions. But I challenge anyone to look at the history of advertising over the past 50 years and find many instances of selfless altruism in it. Advertisers worship at the altar of persuasion. They have an unshakable belief in their ability to bamboozle us and have us turn into mindless consumption machines. It’s all about control, and the advertisers believe they have sole possession of it. Or, at least, they did, until the mid 90’s. Then the game changed.

Now, the whole concept of consumer control is hardly new. It’s been dealt with in a number of books. But again, I’m not sure the threads have been brought together in quite the way I’m envisioning. I’m looking at a number of areas, including social networking, cognitive psychology (in my next life I want to be a cognitive psychologist) and neuro-marketing. I’m also looking at what sets certain companies apart in their ability to connect their brands with communities of customers. Again, nothing earthshakingly new here, but there’s some themes that I think bear further exploration.

So, that’s a pretty vague description. To be honest, the concept is still refining itself in the research process, so I’ll leave it there for now. You’ll find some of my research starting to creep into my recent columns. And soon, probably in the new year, I want to start exposing some of the concepts to the fresh air of internet dialogue, hopefully to have the rough edges smoothed out by vigorous debate in the blogosphere. For today, I just wanted to give you an excuse for my lack of blogging. I’m going to try to get back to it on a more regular basis, to keep myself in practice.