Author Archives: ghotchkiss

Search Engines Innovate, Why Not SEMs?

First published July 26, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

The future of search has been on my mind a lot lately. I’ve just done a series of interviews with some of the top influencers and observers in the space — Marissa Mayer, Danny Sullivan, Greg Sterling, Michael Ferguson, Steven Marder, Jakob Nielsen and others — talking about what the search results page may look like in 2010. I’ll try to corral this into a white paper this fall. I’ve also chatted with a few people about the future of search marketing. And here’s the sum of it all. “Hang on, because you ain’t seen nothing yet!”

Change is the Constant

I have remarked to a number of people in the last week or two that I’ve seen more change in the past six months in the search results page than I have in the last 10 years. And all my interviewees seem to agree: We’re just at the beginning of that change. Whether its personalization, universal results, Web 2.0 functionality or mobile, our search experience is about to change drastically. Search will become more relevant, more functional, more ubiquitous and more integrated. It will come with us (via our mobile devices) more often and in more useful ways. It will expand our entertainment options. It will change forever our local shopping trips. And it will all happen quickly.

As Search Goes, So Goes SEM

The question is, what does this do for search marketing? In a recent conversation, I was asked where the major innovation in the search marketing space was coming from. This was prefaced by the remark that when a well-known industry analyst was asked the same question, they (I’ll keep the gender neutral, as there really aren’t that many industry analysts out there) said there was almost no innovation coming from search marketers. They were “living off the fat.” My first inclination was to jump to the defense of the industry, but this proved harder than I thought.

I realized I haven’t seen a lot of innovation lately. Certainly, the engines themselves are innovating. And I’m seeing innovation in adjacent areas (Web analytics, competitive intelligence). But I’m not seeing a lot happen in the search-marketing space. After a raft of proprietary bid management tools hit a few years ago, there’s been little happening to move the industry forward. In fact, I’ve noticed a lot of SEM heads buried in the sand. We are not encouraging change; we are actively fighting it.

There are probably a lot of reasons why. First and foremost, I think a number of companies that have been in the space for a while are tired. I’ve touched on this in a previous three-part series in Search Insider. Secondly, it’s tough to develop new tools or technologies when you’re completely dependent on APIs or (worse still) scraping information from the search engines.

It’s a very risky call to spend time and resources developing new tools or technologies that can be rendered useless by an arbitrary change at Google or Yahoo — or made obsolete by the rapidly increasing pace of innovation.

Either Help Push Or Get Off!

Whatever the reason (and I’m sure the Search Insider blog will be getting a number of posts refuting my observation), the fact is that if search marketers are, in fact, riding the wave, it’s coming to a crashing halt very soon. The need for innovation and changing your strategic paradigm is greater than ever. As the search engines change rules, those search marketers that want to survive must change. Innovation will become a necessity.

And, in the end, this will be a good thing.

The change that’s happening in the search space is reflective of the change that is happening throughout marketing and advertising. It’s the continuing evolution of a much more efficient marketplace, where connections between customers and vendors are made tremendously more effective through access to information on both sides.

The traditional uncertainty of advertising is being leeched out of the system, due, in large part, to the tremendous effectiveness of search. And as search becomes more relevant and useful, it will make those connections more reliable, less intrusive and more successful for both parties. The opportunity is there for search marketers to help advertisers successfully negotiate this more efficient marketplace. It remains to be seen if we’re up for the challenge.

Personalization Doesn’t Have to Make Search Perfect – Just Better

First published July 19, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

For the first time in a long time, I’ve been consistently frustrated with the result that Google’s been returning for several of my searches. It’s not that Google’s getting worse, it’s that the nature of my searches has changed significantly. My searches are getting fuzzier as I’m stepping into territory I don’t know very well. Google is not functioning terribly well as my “discovery” engine.

Aaron’s Ambient Findability

Aaron Goldman wrote an absolutely fascinating column last week about ambient findability, based on Peter Morville’s book. I’ll definitely be taking Aaron’s advice and ordering my copy from Amazon soon. The interesting thing was that I read Aaron’s column shortly after I did an interview with Jakob Nielsen where he expressed similar cynicism about the practicality of search personalization. To sum up, both instances pointed to the fact that doing personalization is very difficult to do right. It’s probably impossible to do perfectly. But then again, personalization shouldn’t be perfect because humans aren’t. There will always be the human element of variability and unpredictability.

Google’s limits as a discovery engine

As much as the topic of ambient findability fascinates me (I explored the territory myself in a previous Search Insider ) I won’t steal Aaron’s thunder because I know he’s doing a follow-up column this week. I’ll take a more mundane path and talk about my increasing level of frustration with Google.

As I mentioned in last week’s column, I’m currently doing research for a book. Right now, what I’m researching is the nitty-gritty of why and how we make purchase decisions. By the way, Aaron suggested an interesting book, so I’ll do the same. Please do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of Clotaire Rapaille’s “The Culture Code .” This is one of the most fascinating marketing books I’ve read in some time. Rapaille talks about the challenge of doing traditional market research in trying to uncover people’s attitudes towards brands or other aspects of our culture, like food, healthcare and even the American presidency. The problem is that in most traditional market research vehicles (focus groups & surveys) we’re stuck with what people say. It’s almost impossible to uncover what people really feel. What people say comes directly from their cerebral cortex, the logical and rational part of their brain. But what they feel comes from the limbic and reptilian part of the brain, the dark, shadowy corners of our personas. The minute you ask them a question, no matter what the format, you immediately get the cortex in gear. This got me thinking about neural marketing and the actual mechanisms in our mind that click over when we make the decision to buy or not.

Rapaille’s book simply served to whet my appetite. I voraciously started looking for more of the same but books, research or articles that explore the primal reasons why we buy seem to be few and far between (hint: if you know of any, please pass them along in the Search Insider blog so we can all share). I turned to Google and tried a number of queries to try to dig up academic research or Web sites on the subject matter. I was definitely venturing into new territory and while Google usually acts as a reliable guide, it was leaving me stranded high and dry in these particular quests.

Personalization is an idea, not an algorithm

So, let’s get back to personalization. Would personalization in the form (Kamvar’s algorithm) that is currently being envisioned and rolled out by Google help me in this matter? Probably not. The signals (search and Web history) would be too few to help me zero in on the content I’m looking for. It wouldn’t really improve Google’s utility as a “discovery” engine. It would run into the same road blocks that Aaron and others consistently point out.

But here’s the thing. Google is making a huge bet on personalization. But personalization is not the only thing Google is working on. Personalization simply acts as a hub. MIT’s Technology Review recently did an interview with Peter Norvig, Google’s Director of Research. Norvig is, quite literally, a rocket scientist (he was head of computational sciences at NASA in a previous life) who is taking Google’s research in some interesting new directions. Speech recognition and machine translation are two notable areas. Speech recognition can overcome some major input obstacles not only on the desktop, but, more notably, on mobile devices and on a convergent home screen that fully integrates our online world and entertainment options. And machine translation can enable a number of automated systems that can power further online functionality. Both are very much aligned with Google’s engineering view of the universe, where introducing people into the equation just introduces friction in an otherwise perfect world.

But the really telling part of the interview came when the conversation turned to search. Norvig talks about the current imbalance of search, where there is an avalanche of data available but the only gate to that data is the few words the searcher chooses to share with the search engine. We’re trying to paint personalization into a corner based on Google’s current implementation of it. And that’s absolutely the wrong thing to do. Personalization is not a currently implemented algorithm, or even some future version of the same algorithm. It’s is an area of development that will encompass many new technologies, some of which are under development right now in some corner of Google’s labs.

Personalization, in its simplest form, is simply knowing more about you as an individual and using that knowledge to better connect you to content and functionality on the Web. There are many paths you can take to that same end goal. Sep Kamvar’s algorithm is just one of them. By the way, Norvig’s particular area of expertise is artificial intelligence. Let’s for an moment stop talking about personalization and start talking instead about what the inclusion of true artificial intelligence could do for the search experience. But artificial intelligence requires signals, and personalization is a good bet to provide those signals. It doesn’t have to get it perfect every time, it just has to make it better.

Just as a last point, Marissa Mayer said in an interview that Google’s current forays into personalization serve no other purpose than to give Kamvar some data to play with to improve his algorithms. We’ve all quickly jumped on personalization (and yes, I’m probably the most guilty of this) as the new direction of search, but many of us (and I believe my guilt ends here) are making the assumption that personalization means a form of what we’re seeing today. It doesn’t. Not by a long shot. And, at the end of the day, what we’re looking for is a jump ahead in matching our needs with what the Web has to offer. To win, Google doesn’t have to do it perfectly. It just has to do it better than everyone else.

Ask: The Reasoning Behind Ask 3D

Last week in my interview with Jakob Nielsen, he called Ask’s 3D label “stupid”. Just to refresh your memory, here’s how the exchange went:

Gord: Like Ask is experimenting with right now with their 3D search. They’re actually breaking it up into 3 columns, and using the right rail and the left rail to show non-web based results.

Jakob: Exactly, except I really want to say that it’s 2 dimensional, it’s not 3 dimensional.

Gord: But that’s what they’re calling it.

Jakob: Yes I know, but that’s a stupid word. I don’t want to give them any credit for that. It’s 2 dimensional. It’s evolutionary in the sense that search results have been 1 dimensional, which is linear, just scroll down the page, and so potentially 2 dimensional (they can call it three but it is two) that is the big step, doing something differently and that may take off and more search engines may do that if it turns out to work well.

My friend Michael Ferguson at Ask (who has his own interview coming up soon) sent me a quick email with the reasoning behind the label:

The 3D label came from the 3 dimensions of search we folded onto one page: query expression in the left rail, results in the center, and content on the right (vs. the one dimension of returning solely results).

Interview with Jakob Nielsen on the Future of the SERP (and other stuff)

jakob-nielsen_cropped.jpg.400x400_q95_crop_upscaleI recently had the opportunity to talk to Jakob Nielsen for a series I’m doing for Search Engine Land about what the search results page will look like in 2010.  Jakob is called a “controversial guru of Web design” in Wikipedia (Jakob gets his own shots in at Wikipedia in this interview) because of his strongly held views on the use of graphics and flash in web design. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Jakob, even though we don’t agree on everything, because of his no frills, common sense approach to the user experience. And so I thought it was quite appropriate I sound him out on his feelings about the evolution of the search interface, now that with Universal search and Ask’s 3D Search we seem to be seeing more innovation in this area in the last 6 months than we’ve seen for the last 10 years. Jakob is not as optimistic about the pace of change as I am, but the conversation was fascinating. We touched on Universal Search, personalization, banner blindness on the SERP and scanning of the web in China, amongst other things. Usability geeks..enjoy!

Gord: For today I only really have one question, although I’m sure there be lots of branch offs from it. It revolves around what the search engine results page may look like in 2010.  I thought you would be a great person to lend your insight on that.

Jakob: Ok, sure.

Gord: So why don’t we just start? Obviously there are some things that are happening now with personalization and universal search results. Let’s just open this up. What do you think we’ll be seeing on a search results page in 3 years?

Jakob: I don’t think there will be that big a change because 3 years is not that long a time. I think if you look back three years at 2004, there was not really that much difference from what there is today.  I think if you look back ten years there still isn’t that much difference.  I actually just took a look at some old screen shots in preparation before this call at some various search engines like Infoseek and Excite and those guys that were around at that time, and Google’s Beta release, and the truth is that they were pretty similar to what we have today as well.  The main difference, the main innovation seems to have been to abandon banner ads, which we all know now really do not work, and replace them with the text ads, and of course that affected the appearance of the page.  And of course now the text ads are driven by the key words, but in terms of the appearance of the page, they have been very static, very similar for 10 years.  I think that’s quite likely to continue. You could speculate the possible changes. Then I think there are three different big things that could happen.

One of them that will not make any difference to the appearance and that is a different prioritization scheme. Of course, the big thing that has happened in the last 10 years was a change from an information retrieval oriented relevance ranking to being more of a popularity relevance ranking. And I think we can see a change maybe being a more of a usefulness relevance ranking. I think there is a tendency now for a lot of not very useful results to be dredged up that happen to be very popular, like Wikipedia and various blogs. They’re not going to be very useful or substantial to people who are trying to solve problems. So I think that with counting links and all of that, there may be a change and we may go into a more behavioral judgment as to which sites actually solve people’s problems, and they will tend to be more highly ranked.

But of course from the user perspective, that’s not going to look any different. It’s just going to be that the top one is going to be the one that the various search engines, by what ever means they think of, will judge to be the best and that’s what people will tend to click first, and then the second one and so on. That behavior will stay the same, and the appearance will be the same, but the sorting might be different. That I think is actually very likely to happen

Gord: So, as you say, those will be the relevancy changes at the back end. You’re not seeing the paradigm of the primarily text based interface with 10 organic results and  8-9 sponsored results where they are, you don’t see that changing much in the next 3 years?

Jakob: No.  I think you can speculate on possible changes to this as well. There could be small changes, there could be big changes.  I don’t think big changes. The small changes are, potentially, a change from the one dimensional linear layout to more of a two dimensional layout with different types of information, presented in different parts of the page so you could have more of a newspaper metaphor in terms of the layout. I’m not sure if that’s going to happen.  It’s a huge dominant user behavior to scan a linear list and so this attempt to put other things on the side, to tamper with the true layout, the true design of the page, to move from it being just a list, it’s going to be difficult, but I think it’s a possibility.  There’s a lot of things, types of information that the search engines are crunching on, and one approach is to unify them all into one list based on it’s best guess as to relevance or importance or whatever, and that is what I think is most likely to happen.  But it could also be that they decide to split it up, and say, well, out here to the right we’ll put shopping results, and out here to the left we’ll put news results, and down here at the bottom we’ll put pictures, and so forth, and I think that’s a possibility.

Gord: Like Ask is experimenting with right now with their 3D search. They’re actually breaking it up into 3 columns, and using the right rail and the left rail to show non-web based results.

Jakob: Exactly, except I really want to say that it’s 2 dimensional, it’s not 3 dimensional.

Gord: But that’s what they’re calling it.

Jakob: Yes I know, but that’s a stupid word. I don’t want to give them any credit for that. It’s 2 dimensional. It’s evolutionary in the sense that search results have been 1 dimensional, which is linear, just scroll down the page, and so potentially 2 dimensional (they can call it three but it is two) that is the big step, doing something differently and that may take off and more search engines may do that if it turns out to work well.  But I think it’s more likely that they will work on ways on integrating all these different sources into a linear list. But those are two alternative possibilities, and it depends on how well they are able to produce a single sorted list of all these different data sources.  Can they really guess people’s intent that well?

All this stuff..all this talk about personalization, that is incredibly hard to do. Partly because it’s not just personalization, based on a user model, which is hard enough already. You have to guess that this person prefers this style of content and so on.  But furthermore, you have to guess as to what this person’s “in this minute” interest is and that is almost impossible to do. I’m not too optimistic on the ability to do that.  In many ways I think the web provides self personalization, you know, self service personalization. I show you my navigational scheme of things you can do on my site and you pick the one you want today, and the job of the web designer is to, first of all, design choices that adequately meet common user needs, and secondly, simply explain these choices so people can make the right ones for them.  And that’s what most sites do very poorly. Both of those two steps are done very poorly on most corporate websites. But when it’s done well, that leads to people being able to click – click and they have what they want, because they know what they want, and its very difficult for the computer to guess what they want in this minute.

Gord:  When we bring it back to the search paradigm, giving people that kind of control to be able to determine the type of content that’s most relevant to them requires them interacting with the page in some way.

Jakob: Yes, exactly, and that’s actually my third possible change. My first one was changing to the ranking scheme; the second one was the potentially changing to two dimensional layouts. The third one is to add more tools to the search interface to provide query reformulation and query refinement options. I’m also very skeptical about this, because this has been tried a lot of times and it has always failed.  If you go back and look at old screen shots (you probably have more than I have) of all of the different search engines that have been out there over the last 15 years or so, there have been a lot of attempts to do things like this. I think Microsoft had one where you could prioritize one thing more, prioritize another thing more. There was another slider paradigm. I know that Infoseek, many, many years ago, had alternative query terms you could do just one click and you could search on them, which was very simple. Yet most people didn’t even do that.

People are basically lazy, and this makes sense.  The basic information foraging theory, which is, I think, the one theory that basically explains why the web is the way it is, says that people want to expend minimal effort to gain their benefits.  And this is an evolutionary point that has come about because the people, or the creatures, who don’t exert themselves, are the ones most likely to survive when there are bad times or a crisis of some kind. So people are inherently lazy and don’t want to exert themselves. Picking from a set of choices is one of the least effortful interaction styles which is why this point and click interaction in general seems to work very well. Where as tweaking sliders, operating pull down menus and all that stuff, that is just more work.

Gord: Right.

Jakob: But of course, this depends on whether we can make these tools useful enough, because it’s not that people will never exert themselves.  People do, after all, still get out of bed in the morning, so people will do something if the effort is deemed worthwhile.  But it just has to be the case that if you tweak the slider you get remarkably better results for your current needs.  And it has to be really easy to understand. I think this has been a problem for many of these ideas. They made sense to the search engine experts, but for the average user they had no idea about what would happen if they tweaked these various search settings and so people tended to not do them.

Gord: Right. When you look at where Google appears to be going, it seems like they’ve made the decision, “we’ll keep the functionality transparent in the background, we’ll use our algorithms and our science to try to improve the relevancy”, where as someone like Ask might be more likely to offer more functionality and more controls on the page. So if Google is going the other way, they seem to be saying that personalization is what they’re betting on to make that search experience better.  You’re not too optimistic that that will happen without some sort of interaction on the part of the user?

Jakob: Not, at least, in a small number of years. I think if you look very far ahead, you know 10, 20, 30 years or whatever, then I think there can be a lot of things happening in terms of natural language understanding and making the computer more clever than it is now. If we get to that level then it may be possible to have the computer better guess at what each person needs without the person having to say anything, but I think right now, it is very difficult.  The main attempt at personalization so far on the web is Amazon.com. They know so much about the user because they know what you’ve bought which is a stronger signal of interest than if you had just searched for something.  You search for a lot of things that you may never actually want, but actually paying money; that’s a very, very strong signal of interest.  Take myself, for example. I’m a very loyal shopper of Amazon. I’ve bought several hundred things from them and despite that they rarely recommend (successfully)…sometimes they actually recommend things I like but things I already have. I just didn’t buy it from them so they don’t know I have it. But it’s very, very rare that they recommend something where I say, “Oh yes, I really want that”. So I actually buy it from them.  And that’s despite the (fact that the) economic incentive is extreme, recommending things that people will buy. And they know what people have bought. Despite that and despite their work on this now for already 10 years (it’s always been one of their main dreams is to personalize shopping) they still don’t have it very well done. What they have done very well is this “just in time” relevance or “cross sell” as it’s normally called. So when you are on one book on one page, or one product in general, they will say, here are 5 other ones that are very similar to the one you’re looking at now. But that’s not saying, in general, I’m predicting that these 5 books will be of interest to you. They’re saying, “Given that you’re looking at this book, here are 5 other books that are similar, and therefore, the lead that you’re interested in these 5 books comes from your looking at that first book, not from them predicting or having a more elaborate theory about what I like.

Gord: Right.

Jakob: What “I like” tends not to be very useful.

Gord: Interesting. Jakob, I want to be considerate of your time but I do have one more question I’d love to run by you.  As the search results move towards more types of images, we’re already seeing more images showing up on the actual search results page for a lot of searches. Soon we could be seeing video and different types of information presented on the page. First of all, how will that impact our scanning patterns?  We’ve both done eye scanning research on search engine results, so we know there is very distinct patterns that we see.  Second of all, Marissa Mayer in a statement not that long ago seemed to backpedal a bit about the fact that Google would never put display ads back on a search results page, seeming to open a door for non text ads.  Would you mind commenting on those two things?

Jakob: Well they’re actually quite related.  If they put up display ads, then they will start training people to exhibit more banner blindness, which will also cause them to not look at other types of multimedia on the page. So as long as the page is very clean and the only ads are the text ads that are keyword driven, then I think that putting pictures and probably even videos on there actually work well.  The problem of course is they are inherently a more two dimensional media form, and video is 3 dimensional, because it’s two dimensional – graphic, and the third dimension is time, so they become more difficult to process in this linear type of scanned document “down the page” type of pattern.  But on the other hand people can process images faster, with just one fixation and you can “grok” a lot of what’s in an image, so I think that if they can keep the pages clean, then it will be incorporated in peoples scanning pattern a little bit more. “Oh this can give me a quick idea of what this is all about and what type of information I can expect”.  This of course assumes as well one more thing which is that they can actually select good pictures.

Gord: Right.

Jakob: I would be kind of conservative until higher tweaking with these algorithms, you know, what threshold should you cross before you put an image up.  I would really say tweak it such so that you only put it up when you’re really sure that it’s a highly relevant good image.  If there starts becoming that there are too many images, then we start seeing the obstacle course behavior. People scan around the images, as they do on a lot of corporate websites, where the images tend to be stock photos of glamour models that are irrelevant to what the user’s there for.  And then people involve behavior where they look around the images which is very contrary to first principals of perceptual psychology type of predicting which would be that the images would be attractive. Images turn out to be repelling if people start feeling like they are irrelevant. It’s a similar effect to banner blindness. If there’s any type of design element that people start perceiving as being irrelevant to their needs, then they will start to avoid that design element.

Gord: So, they could be running the risk of banner blindness, by incorporating those images if they’re not absolutely relevant…

Jakob: Exactly.

Gord: …to the query. Ok thank you so much.  Just out of interest have you done a lot of usability work with Chinese?

Jakob: Some. I actually read the article you had on your site. We haven’t done eye tracking studies, but we did some studies when we were in Hong Kong recently, and to that level the findings were very much the same. In terms of pdf was bad and how people go though shopping carts. So a lot of the transactional behavior, the interaction behavior, is very, very similar.

Gord: It was interesting to see how they were interacting with the search results page.  We’re still trying to figure out what some of those interactions meant

Jakob: I think it’s interesting. It can possibly be that the alphabet or character set is less scannable, but it is very hard to say because when you’re a foreigner, these characters look very blocky, and it looks very much like a lot of very similar scribbles.  But on the other hand, it could very well be the same, that people who don’t speak English would view a set of English words like a lot of little speck marks on the page, and yet words in English or in European languages are highly scannable because they have these shapes.

Gord: Right.

Jakob: So I think this is where more research is really called for to really find out.  But I think it’s possible, you know the hypothesis is that it’s just less scannable because the actual graphical or visual appearance of the words just don’t make the words pop as much.

Gord: There seems to be some conditioning effects as well and intent plays a huge part.  There’s a lot of moving pieces with that and we’re just trying to sort out. The relevancy of the results is a huge issue because the relevancy in China is really not that good so…

Jakob: It seems like it would have a lot to do with experience and amount of information.  If you compare back with uses of search in the 80’s, for example, before the web started, that was also a much more thorough reading of search results because people didn’t do search very well. Most people never did it actually, and when you did do it you would search through a very small set of information, and you had to carefully consider each probability. Then, as WebCrawler and Excite and AltaVista and people started, users got more used to scanning, they got more used to filtering out lots of junk. So the paradigm has completely changed from “find everything about my question” to “protect myself against overload of information”.  That paradigm shift requires you to have lived in a lot of information for awhile.

Gord: I was actually talking to the Chinese engineering team down at Yahoo! and that’s one thing I said. If you look at how the Chinese are using the internet, it’s very similar to North America in 99 or 2000. There’s a lot of searching for entertainment files and MP3s. They’re not using it for business and completing tasks nearly as much. It’s an entertainment medium for them, and that will impact how their browsing things like search results. It’ll be interesting to watch as that market matures and as users get more experienced, if that scanning pattern condenses and tightens up a lot

Jakob: Exactly. And I would certainly predict it would. There could be a language difference, basically a character set as we just discussed, but I think the basic information foraging theory is still a universal truth. People have to protect themselves against information overload, if you have information overload. As long as you’re not accustomed to that scenario, then you don’t evolve those behaviors. But once you get it… I think a lot of those people have lived in an environment where there’s not a lot of information.  Only one state television channel and so forth and gradually they’re getting satellite television and they’re getting millions of websites. But gradually they are getting many places where they can shop for given things, but that’s going to be an evolution.

Gord: The other thing we saw was that there was a really quick scan right to the bottom of the page, within 5 seconds, just to determine how relevant these results were, were these legitimate results? And then there was a secondary pass though where they went back to the top and then started going through. So they’re very wary of what’s presented on the page, and I think part of it is lack of trust in the information source and part of it is the amount of spam on the results page.

Jakob: Oh, yes, yes.

Gord: Great thanks very much for your time Jakob.

Jakob: Oh and thank you!

Creating Conversations, One Column at a Time

First published July 12, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

I’ve been writing this column for almost three years now. In that time, one of the most rewarding and often humbling aspects is when I get to connect with the community that’s formed around the Search Insider column. I applaud MediaPost for introducing the Search Insider blog, allowing us to turn each column into a conversation. As a writer, you get lazy and a little sloppy when you get too far disconnected from your audience. Getting feedback brings you back to earth. It reminds you that your musings are not going out in the great void. You’re connecting with readers, and hopefully engaging them enough with a concept with which you elicit a response. This is one of the most powerful aspects of the Internet.

Rewiring Communities

I’m tremendously intrigued by how the Internet has rewired our concepts of community. I’ve talked about this before, and it formed the basis of my opening remarks at the Search Insider Summit in Florida in May. I love how we can participate in so many communities that are not tied by geography, but form around ideas and concepts. The online manifestations of our communities are the conversations that ensue. Each one of these columns can instantaneously create an ad hoc community that debates a topic.

My column a few weeks ago was a great example. We formed a community around the concept of whether advertisers “get” search advertising in Canada, and together we created content through our conversation. I started the ball rolling, but the 18 of you that chose to leave a comment picked up the momentum and left something of value. You provided different perspectives, and the conversation grew richer for it. Some of you questioned my premise, some questioned my delivery and forced me to defend it. Many of you, while agreeing in principle, went further and added your own vision and expertise.

For as long as MediaPost decides to leave that conversation accessible, anyone who chooses to see if such a community exists can pick up our threads through a search. They can connect our conversations with others that may have happened on the same topic through linking. They can build on the community by starting their own conversation. They can do a little detective work and track down some of us that commented and re-engage us with further dialogue. The community has permanence. It is real, and it is defined both by the concept we shared and by search, which connects the online outposts that make up the community.

Is Anybody Out There?

You know, for as long as I’ve been writing for Search Insider (and I believe David Berkowitz and I are the two remaining original writers) I’ve had no idea how many of you were out there, reading it. At the beginning, I asked MediaPost what the number of readers was; I never did get a reply. At first, this question was important to me because I was looking at the column as a promotional vehicle. But I think one of the reasons I didn’t pursue my inquiry was because I realized that the purpose of my writing each week is more than just getting my name out there. As I travel from search show to search show, this column acts as a way for me to connect with many of you. The connection is more one-sided than I may like, but it’s gratifying when you mention that you read my Search Insiders, or that the topic of one piqued your interest. They’re like little “community seeds” that can in turn sprout into another conversation. And isn’t that what the Internet is all about? Isn’t that where its tremendous power lies? It’s the world’s largest conversation, and it’s most powerful as a reciprocal activity.

Sorry to get all philosophical on you, but I’ve actually been doing research for a book and these concepts are inextricably tied into its topic. I’ve been threatening to do a book for a long time and someone (probably tired of hearing me go on and on about it with no apparent intention of actually doing it) told me that committing publicly is a great way to make it happen. So I’ve gone on record, and I hope each of you when you see me at a show asks me how the book is going. Or just tell me to get my butt in gear! One of the biggest challenges is for me to take the same interactive conversations that happen online and figure out how to incorporate that into the creation of a book. The Internet has changed everything else. Why should writing a book be any different?

But back to the topic at hand. I often wonder about the future of anything that is centered on search, and this column is no exception. I’m an ardent believer that search is such a fundamental online activity, the glue of the Internet, that soon search will disappear as a distinct function. It will go under the hood, powering the new evolution of the Web, connecting us with the very best matches to our intent. I hope this column evolves along with search, and the conversations continue. In my mind, the best ones are yet to come.

Is Personalization the Path to Follow?

First published July 5, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Aaron, Aaron, Aaron. Could I possibly leave you as a lone voice out in the wilderness, prophesizing about personalized search? Of course not.

Last week, fellow Search Insider Aaron Goldman pointed out some loopholes in personalized search nirvana. It’s hard to find fault with his points. They’re all very real flaws in making personalization a credible evolution in search relevancy. Also, somewhere along the line, it appears that I’ve become the cheerleader for personalized search. I do admit I’m somewhat bullish on it, but I think I should clarify why I think personalization is important.

It’s Time to Break Search’s Paradigm

Search has hit the ceiling, at least in its current embodiment. We’ve pushed the paradigm as far as it will go. Search’s nose is smashed up against the window. (I should stop writing these columns late in the evening, after a 15-hour day!). Search needs to go somewhere, and after looking at the alternatives, I believe personalization is the most probable path.

All the improvements in search over the past decade have largely been in the background. The interface you and I use has hardly changed since I first discovered Infoseek and AlltheWeb back in 1995. Sure, the algorithms have been tweaked, but they’ve all been improvements down the same path, and that path is at a dead end. For search to evolve, it needs to move beyond a pure query-initiated, algorithmic-driven exercise. Even universal search, which is the biggest change we’ve seen to the results page in the past few years, is really still a tweak on the existing paradigm. It’s just mixing the bag of results, powered by the same algorithm.

So, when we look at where search can go, there are precious few alternatives. They all aim at the holy grail, disambiguating intent. We can look at human-powered search. The idea behind this is that real, live human beings can deliver greater relevancy than an algorithm ever could. Here tread Jason Calacanis (Mahalo) and Jimbo Wales (Wikia).  Then we have the very close cousin (and in some cases, a stand-in) social search. If we somehow tag results, or implicitly give our vote, even through a click-through, will others who share our interests find the same results more relevant? Finally, we have personalization.

Don’t Expect Perfection Anytime Soon

Each approach has potential flaws. Any time you break a paradigm, iterative failure is almost a given. Nobody is going to get it perfect out of the gate. Getting to the next evolution of search will involve trial and error. That’s why I think it’s particularly brave of Google, given its current market leading position, to be moving aggressively down the personalization path. They’re eating their own lunch. It’s an inevitable move, but one that it takes guts to make. And don’t judge the potential of personalization based on what you’re seeing today. It would be akin to trying to determine the eventual impact of the automobile based on your impression of the first horseless carriage that lurched through town. There’s a reason it’s in beta.

Aaron worries about the search “ruts” that may evolve with personalization. If we tend to go down the same paths again and again, what happens when we want to explore new territory? Will personalization have formed a groove so deep we can’t crawl out of it?

Aaron is also concerned about multiple profiles on the same machine within a household. Or for that matter, multiple profiles with the same person. I search differently at work than I do at home. How will a search engine reconcile this search schizophrenia?

Of course, we haven’t even touched on the biggest challenge facing personalization: the privacy issue. Personalization is powered by mountains of sensitive data. The potential pushback on this is the biggest red flag that personalization has to contend with.

Making the Leap

But no matter which path search chooses to follow, there will be monumental challenges to address. That’s the whole crux of innovation. If it was easy, everyone would do it. But search has no option. For it to evolve into its next stage, which is to take its rightful place as the fundamental glue that connects us all to the highly functional, highly personal semantic Web, search needs to break the current paradigm. And that’s why I’m bullish on personalization. As Google’s Matt Cutts said to me once (about a totally different topic), if I had a dozen eggs, I’d be putting 11 of them in this particular basket. Sure, personalization has some big hurdles to jump. So do the alternatives. And I think the potential wins for personalization are far bigger. I have the suspicion that if personalization works as well as I think it can, we’ll look back five years from now with bemusement at the concerns we had in 2007 around the issue.

That’s the problem when you come to the end of a development path — and fundamental change, rather than incremental change, is required. It’s very difficult to see what lies ahead.

So You Really Want to Integrate Search?

The Ontario tourism board and I have been butting heads a little bit in the blogosphere as of late.  It all came about from an article I wrote a few weeks ago saying that perhaps Canadian advertisers have their “heads up their ass” with search marketing.  I used the Ontario Tourism Board as an example of a major organization that was not doing search and was quickly corrected by Nick Pedota from the board, who indicated that they were in fact doing a search campaign.  My problem was that I couldn’t find them for any of the keywords I thought they would typically appear for.  It seemed to me that there was a disconnect here.  This week I published a follow-up column indicating that perhaps there was a mismatch between the objectives and the allocation of budget in the Ontario Tourism strategy. In a follow-up comment to the column, Nick graciously complemented me on my research and admitted that perhaps there was room for improvement in their integrated search strategy.  My suspicion is that the cracks in the strategy don’t lie exclusively with either the Ontario Tourism board or their agency but likely fall somewhere in between. And it’s not uncommon to find these cracks when major advertisers move into trying to integrate search in their overall campaign strategies.   Kudos are in order for Ontario Tourism’s recognition of search at all.

In the spirit of improvement, I’d like to offer Nick and other marketers a few tips for successfully integrating search into an overall marketing campaign.

Search should be your first dollars in

Typically, search is added as an afterthought in most marketing campaigns.  In fact, search should be the foundation of the campaign.  This should be the first allocation of funds. Searchers are often your best prospects. They’re the ones that are actively involved in trying to find you.  In the case of the Ontario Tourism Board the entire campaign objective was to drive people to their website.  Therefore, it didn’t make much sense to not fully utilize search as a channel and to steer dollars instead to less efficient branding channels such as print and television.

In this case, the first thing that should have been done was to accurately assess the size of the potential search market.  This would’ve been done during the keyword analysis, when the prime keywords were identified and the corresponding search volumes were discovered.  A smart search marketer would be able to determine the key phrases most likely to convert and would start with these, but would then work outwards to determine the total size of the keyword basket. Going hand in hand with this is the determination of the average click cost for these keywords.  The search marketer has to make the determination if the cost per click is justified, given the likelihood to convert.

Once the total available search inventory that meets the quality threshold is established, this should form the core of your marketing budget. These are prospects are raising their hand, indicating that they’re looking to find you.  They should be the first ones captured in your marketing strategy. Then you can extend the campaign with other branding intiatives.

Realize that branding dollars will drive search volume

Even after you extend your budget into areas other than search, quite often the dollars spent here will translate into search activity.  In the case of Ontario Tourism, they ran their website address in all their ads.  But much of this activity would have translated into searches on the primary search engines.  Therefore, you need top of page presence to capture these navigational searches.  Ontario Tourism also did some national advertising, primarily on television, and in this case in particular there is a high likelihood that search would be used to find the site.  Unfortunately with Ontario Tourism’s geo targeting and other limits on maximizing their search presence, it’s unlikely that searchers would be able to find a site to click through to.  So, in effect, you lose two ways here.  You’re spending the money on branding to drive traffic and then you’re not capturing that traffic by ensuring you have an adequate search presence.

Bid on the head words if budget allows

A common mistake with many first-time search marketers is to compare click costs on different keywords against each other, rather than against other lead generation channels.  Head words, the high traffic key phrases that generally form the bulk of the potential traffic, typically cost much more than the long tail phrases.  The neophyte search marketer, in an attempt to be price conscious, often deletes the head words from consideration because of the expense, relative to more niche phrases.  But this is often the wrong comparison.  What the marketer should do is compare the cost per acquisition against the typical cost per acquisition of other channels.  In the case of Ontario Tourism, even their most expensive potential phrases would’ve cost under two dollars per click.  Even under the most optimistic of conversion scenarios, much of their print advertising would have been costing 15 times that.  It was a false economy to delete the head words from the budget consideration, as it would’ve closed the loop on their search strategy and ended up bringing highly qualified prospects at a much lower cost per conversion than their other channels. If you’ve truly allocated as much as possible to your search budget and the head words are still not within reach, then bidding on long tail phrases is really your only option.  But until you’ve made sure that you’re putting your first dollars in the search, don’t eliminate the head words from consideration.

Remember, if it isn’t clicked you don’t pay

It’s typical to use targeting extensively to make sure that traditional marketing is aimed at the right prospects.  You would pick your media channels based on their target demographics.  Often, this thinking is transferred into search but again this could prove to be a false economy. Ontario Tourism decided to use geo targeting to target their primary markets, which was the province of Ontario and the neighboring US border states.  They also put budget caps in place and put time parameters on their campaign. All of these moves would have made sense if budget were extremely limited.  It always makes sense to buy your best clicks first.  But as I mentioned above, in this case search should have been the first dollars in and this would’ve allowed Ontario Tourism to extend their search campaign to capture all of the potential traffic.  One of the beauties of search is that you can gain visibility with relatively little risk.  Unlike television or newspaper advertising, you only pay in search if the ad is clicked.  This eliminates much of the risk and allows you to relax your targeting to ensure that you’re capturing all the potential search traffic.

Understand the visibility dynamics of the search results page

Another source of false economy is the position you choose to occupy on the search results page.  There is generally five times the interaction with ads in the top sponsored position as opposed to ads on the right rail.  And in the case of Ontario Tourism, the official tourism site for the province of Ontario, this would be a site you would expect to see in the top sponsored ads for searches like Ontario vacations. By reinforcing this inherent trust with eye catchers like “official site” the Ontario tourism board would have been able to take advantage of quality scoring to reduce their bid price and maintain their top position. They would also have to use a close variation of the actual key phrase in the title to reinforce information scent. This relevance should, of course, carry through to the landing pages well.  This was an area that could lead to substantially increased conversions for the Ontario Tourism Board as well.

I embarked down this path in order to wake up Canadian advertisers and hopefully make them smarter about integrating search into their strategies.  It’s in that spirit that I offer these suggestions for those that are looking to seriously tap into the potential of search.

“Doing Search” Online Counts If You’re Seen

First published June 28, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

I’m not making any friends with Ontario Tourism. Two weeks ago I said in this column they weren’t using search. I was quickly corrected by the tourist bureau’s Nick Pedota, who told me my claim was “wildly inaccurate” and that Ontario Tourism in fact has “an extensive search program.” But based on the following searches I did while in Toronto, Ontario Tourism didn’t show for: Ontario vacations, Ontario resorts, Toronto vacations, Ontario getaways and Ontario holidays. According to Google Trends’ keyword research tool, these are the most common searches for Ontario, by a substantial margin.

If You’re Not Seen, You’re Not Doing Search

Here’s the reality of search marketing. It’s one thing to say “we’re doing search” internally — and it’s a totally different thing to have the searcher realize that yes, you’re doing search. The smart thing to do here would be to give Pedota and Ontario Tourism the retraction they’re looking for and say I made a mistake (which I did). But this proves too good an example of the disconnect I see all the time; managing a search campaign to budgets, not objectives. I stand by my original claim: Canadian advertisers aren’t clueing into the power of search.

Nick wasn’t really in a mood to share many details of the bureau’s campaign, but he did share that they’re were bidding on thousands of “targeted keyphrases” and were using heavy geo-targeting to focus on their prime markets (Ontario and the border states). He said that’s simply “smart marketing”. I can’t disagree. It makes sense to target in on your best clicks first, especially if budgets are limited.

Where’s the Money Going?

But in this case, are budgets really limited? Let me share some things I was able to dig up on Ontario Tourism’s site. First of all, the tourist bureau is doing print (lots of print) and TV (lots of TV). The goal? To drive people to its Web site. Full-page 4-color ads are running multiple times in over 70 dailies and weekly newspapers and 9 magazines. One 4-color full-page ad in the Toronto Star would run about $54,000 (there’s a certain amount of guessing here, as print rate cards are really a mathematical exercise in confusion and frustration). Circulation of the Toronto Star is 350,000 (on an average day). An excellent conversion rate for a newspaper ad would be 0.5% That means, ideally, 1,750 people would actually visit the Ontario Tourism website. Now, I have never in my life seen a newspaper ad convert this well, but even if it did, that would be a cost per visitor of $30.85. If the ad doesn’t work that well, the average cost climbs dramatically. And you pay whether or not the ad works.

What People Actually Use

Now, courtesy Yahoo Canada and a recent survey, let’s look at what actual travelers cite as the most important influencers in making travel plans. Search and Web sites are tied for number one and two, used by 51% of respondents in a recent survey. Newspapers and print? Only used by 7%. But yet, only 2.1% of Canadian ad budgets get spent on search, and 42% gets spent on newspapers and magazines. I couldn’t get any specific percentages for Ontario Tourism, but one only has to look at their campaign page to see that search is very likely getting only a fraction of what’s going to newspapers and magazines. And don’t even get me started on the TV buys.

The Search Story

So, where is Ontario Tourism in the search results? As Pedota shared, they’re only geo-targeting the prime markets, and then only for a 3-month period (April through June). Only 1 of the 7 highest traffic key phrases I found (using an Ontario IP) returned an ad or an organic listing for Ontario Travel (the site also hasn’t been organically optimized). More specific phrases, like Ontario Summer Vacations or Ontario Wine Getaways, did return more ads.

But by bidding on specific phrases (even thousand of “long tail” ones) and not on the more popular ones, Ontario Tourism is catching less than 10% of all the people using search to plan a vacation in Ontario. And unless you’re in the top-sponsored ad locations (which few of the ads I saw were) you’re actually only being seen by a small percentage of those searchers (usually 10% to 30% of them) on the results pages you do appear on. So, according to 97 out of 100 people who are using search to find the official site for Ontario Tourism, the tourism bureau is not “doing search.” By the way, you could maintain top spot in Google and Yahoo for all the top traffic phrases for less than $2 per visitor. Remember, that ad in the Toronto Star cost, at a minimum, 15 times that!

Again, let’s recap. What’s the purpose of the campaign? To drive people to the Web site. And not just any one — THE official Web site of Ontario Tourism, the site most people are looking for on these key phrases.

And You’re Spending Your Money Where?

Is it really “smarter” to ignore 97% of the people who are actively searching online to find you, so you can spend more money running ads in newspapers for the 99.5% of people who have no interest in your site at all? And the real irony here is that if people don’t click on a search ad, you don’t pay! Take a fraction of that budget from the Toronto Star and blow out the geo-targeting and time parameters and go for the high-traffic phrases. After all, there might be people in Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia that are planning a trip to Ontario. Or, perhaps they’re planning their trip in September, or February. If not, it’s not costing you anything. Try getting the Toronto Star to offer the same pricing model!

Is this really smarter marketing? You decide. The readership of this column includes some of the smartest marketers on the planet. Blog about this and give me your opinion. Maybe I’m missing something, but I’ve decided I shouldn’t apologize for trying to get advertisers to spend money more effectively. After all, in this case, it’s really our money they’re spending. At least, it would be if I were an Ontario taxpayer. Something tells me after this column, it might be a good thing I live 2000 miles away. As I said, I’m not making any friends in Ontario.

Yahoo + Yang = Google + (Page+Brin)?

First published June 21, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

So Jerry Yang is no longer just the chief Yahoo, whatever that means. Terry Semel has vacated Yahoo’s CEO office and Jerry Yang has set up shop there. At the same time, Sue Decker has stepped into the president’s role. While Terry Semel’s departure didn’t come as a great surprise to anyone in the search space, Jerry Yang’s appointment as CEO did raise a few eyebrows. In retrospect, the move seems to make a lot of sense but in the numerous conversations I’ve had on this topic in the last few weeks, no one mentioned Yang’s name as Yahoo’s possible savior.

With this move will come the inevitable speculation about how this will bolster Yahoo’s chances of competing against Google. Just last week I was interviewed by Bloomberg TV and was asked about that very topic. At that time I mentioned that the biggest difference between the two was the lack of corporate focus at Yahoo and the fact that focus, at least on the search side, has never been an issue for Google.

My belief is that there’s a lot behind the scenes that we’re not privy to that will explain Yang’s appointment as CEO when it becomes public knowledge. My suspicion is that there may be an acquisition deal in the works and this is a “feel-good” move to help shore up Yahoo’s eroding stock price until the deal can be finalized. But whether or not that’s the case, I did want to take a few minutes to make some comparisons between Google and Yahoo in light of Monday’s news.

Sacred Cow = Balanced Ecosystem?

Search is the sacred cow at Google. More correctly, the search user experience is the sacred cow of Google. And it’s the quality of that search experience that has driven the vast majority of Google’s revenue and has put them in the position where they can pose a significant threat in virtually every information channel in the world.

Recently I was worried about search appearing to take a backseat at Google. With all the media hype surrounding Google’s moves into other channels, I was worried that perhaps the corporation itself had lost sight of how important search was in their overall strategy.

It appears my fears were misplaced. Google’s Matt Cutts was quick to comment on a blog post that search is still integral to everything that Google does and that the team was hard at work improving that search experience. Shortly after that, the personalization and universal search announcements began to roll out of Google labs. From everything I’ve been seeing, Google is more intent on improving the search user experience than ever and is using universal search and personalization as the hub that will drive a much more extensive user interaction with Web content and information. Of course, a more efficient delivery of advertising goes hand-in-hand with that strategy.

I’ve always been a big believer in corporate sacred cows. These are the untouchable tenets that drive the overall strategy of the company. From everything I’ve seen, heard or read about Google, the search user experience is its sacred cow. The company is focused on engineering the most effective and relevant connection between users and their desired content. The advantage of the sacred cow is that it gives an unquestionable rallying point for the company. All else is fair game but that single strategic foundation is what keeps the company on track.

Yahoo has no sacred cows. In all my conversations with the company there’s a lot of talk about community and a balanced ecosystem. Those very terms suggest compromise. There are a ton of Yahooers (although, like the Yahoo share price, this number is eroding as well) who are passionate about their jobs and would love to see their particular interest elevated to the status of the corporate sacred cow, but they’ve become frustrated with the lack of support from the CxO level. Just last year, Sue Decker was quoted saying that Yahoo is quite content to be No. 2 in the search game. In fact, the company’s strategy was trying to hang on to their eroding market share. It was, in effect, a public capitulation to Google. That announcement hit the Yahoo search team squarely in the gut. They definitely were not ready to give up on search.

Eric Schmidt = Terry Semel?

From the outside, it may appear that Eric Schmidt and Terry Semel served fairly similar roles. In both cases they are cofounders still actively involved in the business. The cofounders were incredibly young and lacked traditional “business expertise.” And both Schmidt and Semel stepped in with a significant amount of past experience.

But there the similarities ended. From the very beginning, Schmidt understood that while he served as CEO, Page and Brin were always going to take a very active role in running Google. And Schmidt stepped into his role with a tremendous amount of respect for the sheer intellectual horsepower that Page and Brin brought to Google. He never wanted to remove them from their decision-making roles. He understood that they were a key element in Google’s success.

Semel, on the other hand, came from the Hollywood Warner Bros. power structure and was intent on making Yahoo the new entertainment giant.

That strategy, however, had one fatal flaw. No one at Yahoo, least of all Semel, understood that media consumption was going to be an entirely different game online. Prepackaged bits of content, carefully packaged for easily digested consumer consumption, pushed out to us by a media giant – this was not how we were going to find our entertainment in the future. Now, we were completely in control and we would choose what, where and when we would watch. We didn’t need a power channel pushing us content. We needed a better tool for finding the content we were interested in. The rules had changed and Yahoo didn’t have a new version of the rulebook. No one had the rulebook, because it hadn’t been written yet.

Larry + Sergey = Jerry + David?

Finally, to me the biggest difference between Yahoo and Google is in the day-to-day role of the founders. Brin and Page have never backed off from their control positions at Google. In fact one of the running jokes at Google is their tendency to swoop in, roll up their sleeves and bury themselves in the minutiae of one particular item or project, much to the frustration of the team working on it. There is a Google-wide conspiracy aimed at trying to keep their hands off of any important code. As frustrating as this micromanaging might be to the individuals involved, it does give the two an intimate knowledge of everything that’s happening at the company. Their voracious intellectual appetite gobbles up this tremendous amount of detail and somehow digests it into strategic decisions that are very seldom wrong. Someone recently told me that one of the reasons that Brin has some challenges relating to the real world is that he’s never been wrong in his life. He doesn’t know what it means to fail.

David Filo and Jerry Yang, while still actively involved in Yahoo, have been quietly influencing from behind the scenes. They’re easier-going and not nearly as intense as Brin and Page. They suggest rather than demand. They stepped back, willing to let Semel run the show. In traditional wisdom, they did exactly what entrepreneurs and cofounders should do. They passed the torch on.

But in this case, it didn’t work. Yahoo lost its way. Brin and Page’s nettlesome but much-needed day-to-day involvement kept Google on track. Yahoo was left to founder and flopped back and forth, never being exactly sure what it was.

Even in the few hours since the announcement was made (as of the writing of this column) there has already been reports that the management change is exactly what Yahoo needs. Jerry Yang is recognized as a champion for the user experience on Yahoo and, in stepping back into the CEO’s old role, seems to signal a return to the fundamental principle of the user’s importance. In my view, it’s too little too late. If users were really that important to Yahoo, why were they pushed out of the driver’s seat in the first place?

The Cranky Canadian is Back from Toronto

Apparently I stirred the pot a little bit when I was in Toronto. Yahoo invited me to give a breakfast talk to the handful of Canadian advertisers and I managed to hijack the session for 10 to 15 minute rant about how Canadians don’t get search.  I quickly followed this up with a column in  the SearchInsider to the same effect. I did make one mistake.  I did mention that the Ontario government doesn’t do search for their official tourism information site.  I was quickly corrected in that.  There is in fact the search campaign going on.  It just wasn’t registering for any of the searches I did.  I think I’ll follow up on this a little more for next week’s SearchInsider column.

I apologize to show chair Andrew Goodman for breaking the cardinal Canadian rule of politeness.  Andrew is shipping a case of generic cola with a Canadian politeness serum cleverly mixed in to try to return me to the accepted norms for Canadian behavior. I noticed another blogger who picked up on my rant indicated that as a Canadian living in the US, I would be well advised to escape back south of the border. I don’t know if this is good news for Canadian advertisers or not, but I actually am a resident Canadian.  I call Kelowna, B.C. home.

You know, the funny thing is, other than poor Nick at the Ontario Tourism Board who I mistakenly said had his head up his ass, most everyone else has agreed with me.  Perhaps being a cranky Canadian pays off.  To my knowledge there’s nobody who really is filling this role currently, although Canadians have a long tradition of being cranky.  Notable cranky Canadians in the past included Gordon Sinclair, Pierre Berton and Jack Webster.

If it makes you feel any better, Canadian advertisers weren’t  the only ones I turn my sights on in the past week.  I also took a few shots at Yahoo during an interview on Bloomberg TV. Maybe it’s the fact that I’ve been traveling for past 2 1/2 months and I think the last time I actually got seven hours of uninterrupted sleep was back in March. This weekend I think I’ll have a stiff shot of Canadian whiskey (we call it rye up here), have a good night’s sleep and maybe I’ll come back next week kinder, gentler and more polite.  Or not.