Author Archives: ghotchkiss

I’ve Been Tagged

Matt Bailey tagged me over the weekend (here’s Matt’s response to being tagged), along with a not so subtle hint that I should get off my butt and do more posting. Thanks Matt. Jonathon Mendez gave me a similar message at SES in Chicago.

Here’s how the game seems to work. You tag 5 bloggers and they all have to share 5 things that people don’t know about them. I’m not really that deep, so I don’t know if there are any secrets hidden down there..but I’ll do my best.

1. I worked as a radio copywriter right out of college, doing stints at stations in Edmonton, Alberta, Regina, Saskatchewan, Fort McMurray, Alberta and Kelowna, BC. Yes, it was the not so famous tour of the lesser known hot spots in Western Canada. Here are the notable memories from each location. Edmonton is notable (or notorious?) primarily for its mall which is still the largest one in the world. If you had spent a winter in Edmonton, you’d understand the logic. My memories, however, are more around seeing the Oilers play through the seasons of 80 – 83, while they had Gretzky, Kurri, Messier, Coffey, Glenn Anderson and Andy Moog. It was perhaps the best team to ever hit the ice, and I wasn’t even a big hockey fan. I moved to Regina in the winter for my first real job in radio, and thought if I could hang on til summer, it would get better. I was wrong. We had a plague of grasshoppers that literally covered the streets and sidewalks. Fort McMurray, in northern Alberta, is the single largest known deposit of oil in the world. This one deposit has more oil than Saudi Arabia. So you’d better be nice to us Canadians! And finally, Kelowna, my current home. It’s a beautiful place, which could be why I’ve been here almost 20 years now.

2. I won the Canadian Radio Industry’s Equivalent of a Clio, a Crystal, back in 1991, for a commercial I wrote. It had no sound effects, other than a crinkled chip bag, and I did one of the voices. You have to understand that I was almost never allowed to do voice over work for any station and if you’ve heard me speak, you’ll probably understand why. I think we can agree that it’s usually what I talk about, not the quality of my voice, that lands me any speaking gigs that come my way. James Earl Jones has nothing to worry about.

3. I have no university degree. I do have a diploma in Radio and Television Arts from the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, but there are no letters after my name. I’m one of the very few members of the Enquiro team without a degree. Somewhat ironic, because I know that there’s at least one academic paper that I’ve co-authored now.

4. I was raised in possibly the least liberal town in Canada. Sundre, where I grew up, is in the heart of rural, bible belt Alberta. And Alberta, for those who know the Canadian political landscape, is hardly a hot bed of liberal ideology. This is farming, ranching, oil country. Just to mix things up a bit, it was originally settled by Norwegians, so to put it in US analogous terms, if you took Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon and moved it to Texas by way of Montana, you’d probably have Sundre.

5. You probably wouldn’t guess it to look at me (although I have lost 50 pounds in the last year..another little known fact), but I love road biking. I tend to head off for solo rides, I’m not really into racing or riding with groups. I’m trying to recruit someone interested in doing a 3 or 4 day road trip in the next year or two. Typically an average ride for me is 60 to 100 K’s (about 40 to 60 miles). Next year my goal is to do a one day 100 mile ride.

That’s it. Now..who do I tag? Well, it may be a easy way out, but we have 5 bloggers right here in Enquiro, so I think I’ll tag Manoj Jasra, Marina Garrison, Cory Bates, Jody Nimetz and Rick Tobin.

Interview with Shuman Ghosemajumder about Click Fraud

Had a chance to chat with Shuman Ghosemajumder regarding click fraud. Shuman is Google’s point person on the click fraud issue. This follows up on the post Andy Beal made on MarketingPilgrim earlier this week. Most of what we chatted about was in my Search Insider column this week. However, not all of it made it into the column, as there is a cut off which I routinely ignore (thanks to MediaPost editor Phyllis Fine for keeping me in line).

Here’s some tidbits that didn’t make it into the column:

First of all, I wanted to take the media to task for crying the sky is falling around this issue. I know that’s what journalists do, but the portrayal of the click fraud issue has been very one sided to this point. That’s why I wrote the column. I think it’s important we get balancing viewpoints. In the absence of numbers universally regarded as accurate, one has to poll the extremes and guess that the true answer lies somewhere in the middle. Up to this point, all we’ve heard are the negative estimates, and these are based on some studies with methodolgy that’s questionable at best (i.e. the Outsell study)

Secondly, I believe it’s unfair that everyone seems to be taking aim at Google, and to a lesser extent, Yahoo on this issue. I know they’re easy targets, because the targets are so damned big, but when the real numbers finally do come out, I’d bet my 89 Mazda 626 (the car that just won’t die!) that it’s the 2nd and 3rd tier networks that are the hotbeds of click fraud.

I dealt with it briefly in the column, but one of the main sources of misrepresentation seems to be this question of what click fraud is. For me, the definition is pretty simple, fraudulent clicks that leave the advertiser financially impacted. But when it comes to most of the media portrayals, there are a number of clicks that get lumped together under the label “click fraud”, the majority of which don’t meet this definition. And Google’s point of contention with reports of click fraud that come from the media and various 3rd party fraud detection tools comes from this aggregation of questionable numbers. There’s no distinction made between actual fraud, the clicks that cost the advertiser, and attempted fraud, the ones that got caught. And often more benign clicks, i.e. multiple legitimate clicks coming from the same IP address, get mistakenly labelled as click fraud.

Another positive move by Google was the inclusion of invalid clicks in the advertiser’s reporting dashboard. Every move that Google makes towards greater transparency is a very positive one. And the best know Google evangelist for communication, Matt Cutts, indicated so on a blog post. By the way, Shuman also has a blog, where he goes into greater depth on this issue.

I can only imagine how frustrating this must be for Shuman and the Google Click Fraud team. They sit and listen to numbers be bandied about in the 15% plus range, knowing from first hand experience that the real number is likely much much lower (in the column, using assumptions that are probably on the high side, the actual amount of click fraud that an advertiser would have to challenge Google on is less than 0.18%). Yet, their tongues are tied, both by Google’s legal and corporate communications department.

Why is the media targeting click fraud and trying to scare the hell out of advertisers? In no other industry I can think of are reporters more prone to mix and match numbers without regard for accuracy. They do it, and get away with it, because there are no independent and reliable numbers to look at.

There are a number of reasons. Google is in the vanguard of disruptive change agents that are shaking the very ground of marketing. It’s somewhat defensive to look for an Achilles heel, and right now, click fraud seems to fit the bill. Google in particular is boldly stating they want to change everything. That scares people.

Part of it is that there is still a lot of people that would love to see Google be knocked down a few pegs. Much as we rever success, wildly successful companies or individuals generate jealousy and suspicion. Our society gets a nasty little thrill when the mighty fall.

But perhaps the biggest reason is the very strength of search and online marketing: it’s accountability. Nothing else is as measurable. So when something appears to be eating away at the cost effectiveness, we tend to go all forensic on it and analyze the hell out of it. Could you imagine the mainsteam press making a big deal out of a .18% hole in the accountability in television advertising, or radio, or print? Even a 10 to 15% hole? Of course not, because much bigger holes than that are accepted every day as being inherent in the channel. But search and online ad networks are apparently fair game.

Is click fraud happening? Absolutely. And if you switch the lens a bit, there are some sophisticated click fraud operations that are making a killing. In a response to my column, Chris Nielsen had this excellent observation:

The problem is not overt clicking on ads, competitors clicking on ads, or double-clicking on ads. The problem is with large-scale concerted efforts that are massive enough to to have enough variety of IP address, user agents, etc. and pose as “valid” user click activity.

Of course this activity varies some with the bid price of the clicks, but it’s really the old idea of stealing a penny from a million people. If anyone notices, who’s really going to care? The problem is that in some areas, there are hundreds or thousands of people stealing pennys, and it is noticible and it is a problem. The only real indication is the lack of bona fide conversions, and that’s hard to say for sure if it’s fraud or real factors with the marketing or web site.

But it comes down to which lens you look through. Do you look at those looking to profit from click fraud, some of them doing it very well? Or do you look at the scope of the problem over the big picture? The problem I have with the BusinessWeek report is that the reporting is trying to do both at the same time, and you can’t get a clear picture by doing so.

I just wanted to wrap up this post by mentioning some other initiatives on this front that Google is pursuing which didn’t make it into the original column. Obviously they’re working on proprietary techniques to filter out click fraud, but they’re also trying to attack the problem on an industry wide basis as well. They’re working with the IAB Click Measurement working group, in which SEMPO is also involved. And they’re calling for stringent and scientific independent auditing standards, so when we throw around terms like click fraud, we’re all dealing with a common reference framework. By the way, I also asked Shuman about impression fraud. We didn’t go into a lot of depth on the issue, but they feel they’re equally on top of that as well.

The Elusive Click Fraud Issue: Google’s Side of the Story

First published December 14, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

There are few issues in search marketing more thorny and convoluted than click fraud. It’s the elusive problem, the industry scourge that seems to defy definition. Everyone wants to know the extent of click fraud, but to date, there seems to be no credible numbers to attach to the problem. A recent BusinessWeek “investigation” called it the “dark underground” of the Internet, “a dizzying collection of scams and deceptions that inflate advertising bills for thousands of companies of all sizes.” The article pegged the occurrence of click fraud at “10% to 15% of ad clicks… representing roughly $1 billion in annual billings.” Unfortunately, the reporter used some questionable sources and math to come up with this number.

Even experienced search marketers can sometimes jump to wrong conclusions. Noted search marketer Andy Beal thought he had a scoop earlier this week when he did a little rough calculation on a presentation made by Google click fraud point person Shuman Ghosemajumder and pegged the actual occurrence of click fraud at 2% on Google. There was actually a little miscommunication between Beal and Ghosemajumder (since corrected on Andy’s blog). I chatted with Ghosemajumder this week and here’s Google’s side of the story, largely ignored by the mainstream press.

Where Do These Numbers Come From?

BusinessWeek‘s article said “most academics and consultants who study online advertising” agree with the 10% to 15% number. Yet there has been no independent study done with reliable methodology to accurately scope the size of the issue. The study most often cited is a particularly damning one done by Outsell in May of 2006. In the study, 407 companies were asked what percentage of their search buy they believed to be fraudulent. They then averaged the responses and extrapolated it across the industry. Many of these advertisers weren’t even tracking ROI, definitely a prerequisite for accurate identification of actual fraudulent behavior. As Ghosemajumder pointed out, “it’s like asking a random group of people what they estimate the average salary in the U.S. to be, when they have no numbers to judge it on, and they don’t even know what their own salary is.” Yet, this is the number that seems to be accepted as fact by reporters determined to blow the issue into cover story status.

What’s Fraud, and What’s Attempted Fraud?

One fact that seems to be easily overlooked is what actually qualifies as click fraud. Fraud is only perpetrated when damage is done–in this case, if money passes hands. If no money changes hands, it’s attempted fraud. Yet this simple distinction seems to be overlooked by many “investigators” into the question of click fraud. Everything tends to be included in the same bucket, usually accompanied by a whopping percentage designed to scare the hell out of online advertisers.

The 2% number quoted on marketingpilgrim.com came from Andy Beal, not from Google. It was computed by looking at the relative size of some graphics on a slide deck that was prepared to show Google’s click fraud filtering systems.

Google has coined the term “invalid clicks” to refer to all those that advertisers are not charged for. This category also includes more benign examples, such as multiple clicks on the same ad that can happen when a visitor “pogo sticks,” or clicks on an ad, hits the back button, and then clicks through on the ad again. Ghosemajumder does confirm that the number of invalid clicks represents a “single digit” percentage of all clicks across the network,

The “vast majority” of these clicks are proactively filtered out by Google in real time before any money passes hands, he says. It’s as if the clicks didn’t happen. The advertisers don’t pay, and the publisher where the click originated doesn’t get paid. The invalid clicks that slip through the real time filter then go for offline analysis, primarily focused on the AdSense network. Advertisers here are affected, but get refunds from Google without their having to take any action. In this case, Google does have a procedure for going back to the sites where the clicks originated. If anyone is out of pocket for these clicks, it’s Google, not the advertiser.

Now we get to the 2% number. It refers to the clicks that make it through the proactive filters that the advertiser has to bring to Google’s attention. The official word from Google is that this number is a “negligible percentage” of the total number of invalid clicks. My sense is that it’s probably much less than 2%. Remember, this isn’t a negligible percentage of all clicks, but a negligible percentage of “invalid” clicks, which in turn is less than 10% of all the clicks happening on Google.

The Impact in Dollars and Cents

So, let’s talk about actual fraud, where the advertiser is the one out of pocket. Let’s assume there is an advertiser with a $100,000-per- month budget. Let’s further assume that the clicks this advertiser receives are representative of the total Google network.

Using the assumed 9% number as the number of invalid clicks, this means about $9000 of the budget falls into this category. From this, the “vast majority” are filtered out in real time, so there is no impact to the advertiser. A smaller percentage is refunded to the client without its having to take any action. Finally, there’s the percentage that slips through the proactive filters. Even if we go with 2%, that would make the amount that would impact the advertiser $180. If you’re doing your math, that’s 0.18% of the total monthly spend, a far cry from 10% to 15%.

But It’s Not that Simple

These are the estimates from Google, which has invested heavily in fighting click fraud. The same diligence in policing click fraud is probably not present in all advertising networks. Click fraud is definitely more prevalent in some sectors and on some networks than others. Finally, everyone acknowledges that we don’t know what we don’t know. If click fraud goes undetected through Google’s filters and the advertiser never challenges it, it won’t be identified. Google uses the ROI and conversion data that some of its advertisers share with it as an overall indicator of click fraud activity throughout its network. Its executives feel confident that there’s very little slipping through all of these cracks.

Yes, this is Google’s side of the story, but as the mainstream press seems to be more interested in focusing on a couple of egregious cases rather than providing a realistic picture of the issue across the entire network, I think it’s important to pass it along. In the absence of real numbers for the short term, shouldn’t you at least balance the numbers being touted by the press with those coming from the people fighting click fraud on a daily basis?

Search and the Winds of Change in Chicago

First published December 7, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Things are changing in the SEM world. At the Search Engine Strategies Conference Chicago, it’s more than the ice-cold winds off Lake Michigan that are blowing. These are the winds of change. There is a palpable sense that we’re moving into a new era in search.

Dateline: Chicago

The word on the streets of Chicago (not that I’ve ventured on the streets that much) is that a huge consolidation juggernaut is about to steamroll the industry. We’ve seen the precursor to that in a few announcements timed with the show. But at the same time, we’re seeing the world of search fragment in another way, as search marketers now have to move their focus to include new worlds such as CRM platforms, ad networks, local, video, social tagging, analytics, usability and a host of other emerging developments. If we follow Google’s model, soon we’ll be dabbling in the world of print and radio. And I thought I had left those worlds behind in a previous life.

There’s a collective holding of our breath to see what’s next. One of the wonderful things about search, the fact that it’s the intersection of so much activity on the Internet, is also its biggest challenge. To truly leverage search, you have to have one foot in a lot of different worlds. And that’s tough to do as a small independent shop.

The Honeymoon’s Over

But the other topic of conversation I’m hearing is how the integration of traditional marketing and search is not going as swimmingly as some of the early marriages might have us believe. There’s a lot of drinking of one’s own Kool-Aid here. Search agencies position themselves as the keepers of the vaunted black box, the holders of arcane knowledge and assets essential to the truly enlightened marketer. That black box could be advanced algorithmic optimization knowledge and technology or sponsored search management technology and advanced campaign optimization tools. Whatever it is, the SEMs protect and promote it religiously, using it to drive up the price tag of their company.

The potential buyers seem content to cede this small area of expertise to the SEMs, because they lay claim to pretty much everything else. The entire brand relationship that lies outside the search silo is where they play, and the only reason they’re looking at search at all is because they’re being forced to by their clients. Reluctantly, they have to look at building or buying, and the lack of available talent is forcing their hand towards the second option. It’s a shotgun marriage, and in many cases, the results will be predictable. Search marketers are mavericks, and they won’t place nice in the corrals that are currently being set up for them.

We Don’t Know What We Don’t Know

The problem is that in both cases, the egos on both sides of the table don’t allow us to know what we don’t know. The trick here is not to be territorial about your area of expertise, but to acknowledge that the rules of the game are changing incredibly quickly, are being changed not by the agencies, not by the search engines, certainly not by the SEMs–but by the consumers, and we’d better all work together to figure out what’s happening.

I believe in integrated, or convergent, service offerings. I think it’s essential. But the simple fact is that there is no search silo. It sits at the center of a tremendous amount of consumer activity. But the firms that are positioning themselves to provide these convergent (or integrated, or 360 degree–you pick the buzzword)  better reacquaint themselves with the meaning of the words integrated and convergent, because unless they truly get it, admit they don’t know everything and are willing to work with new partners to effectively understand this new consumer control, they won’t be able to keep up. Passion is the price of entry, but please, everyone, check your egos at the door.

Living in a Quality Score World

Another point of interest that emerged in Chicago is the new reality of quality scoring being introduced by the engines. Suddenly, search marketers have to tweak a lot more campaign factors to determine position on the page. We have to look at not only the quality of the ad but also the quality of the landing page and the subsequent on site experience. To make matters murkier, the engines aren’t really sharing the criteria or methodology they’ll be using in these new quality algorithms. So once again, search marketers will be working in the dark, trying to reverse engineer the inner algo workings that will hopefully vault their page up into the top of the Golden Triangle, but this time on the sponsored side. I think search marketers will be well suited to the task, but the challenge is that this requires them to step into a lot of new areas, and in some cases, they’ll be stepping on toes in doing so, both on the client side and the agency side. Without exception, the biggest challenge we’ve had in delivering effective results has been in getting the buy-in of the various groups required to take a holistic approach to search. The introduction of a quality score means this will be happening with greater frequency.

New Madison Avenue Mavens?

One dinner conversation I had circled around the potential future of SEM agencies. Apparently, a representative from a major engine told a room full of SEMs that we’re the new Madison Avenue. We embrace accountable marketing in a way that much of the rest of the advertising world is struggling with. We’re not afraid of consumer-empowering technology, because we’ve cut our teeth on such technology. And we’ve learned to adapt and survive in a fluid marketplace, where things change daily. To me, these three things are the true value that SEMs bring to the table, and as traditional agencies look for potential partners, I’d be looking very hard at those three criteria. To be honest, most of the rest of our “black magic” boils down to simple common sense and a willingness to do the dirty work that’s required to optimize search campaigns, whether they’re on the organic or sponsored side.

It’s been a cold week in Chicago, but one would never guess–based on the heat being generated in the Chicago Hilton Convention Center. Hang on, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

SEMPO’s Snapshot of Search

First published November 30, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

If you haven’t heard, or received your invite, the annual SEMPO State of the Market survey is currently looking for search marketers to give us this year’s snapshot of the industry. You can find a link to the survey at the SEMPO site. Now in its third year, this survey has become the definitive year-over-year look at search marketing.

Knowing that we’re in Chicago next week for Search Engine Strategies, we paused long enough to take some on the fly data points which we’ll be sharing at a special SEMPO meeting on Monday night. I can share one of them with you in this column.

Why the Survey?

First, why do we do this? Simple. In something as dynamic as search, it’s tough to keep your bearings. Obviously, year-over-year sizing of the markets is one yardstick, but there are a lot of other factors that we like to keep an eye on. We track advertiser’s acceptance of different strategies, including paid placement (or sponsored search), paid inclusion and organic optimization. Late- breaking info on this in a moment. This year, we’ll also be asking more questions about local search and what other marketing channels advertisers use.

We also check in with advertisers on issues like click fraud and how prevalent they feel it is, as well as use of search marketing technology and contextually targeted ads. Of course, we’re very interested in where those search engine budgets are being placed and where those budgets are coming from. Is search poaching from other budgets, or has it established itself as its own line item?

We try to determine the maturity of search by asking how much executive participation there is in search marketing decisions. We can also look at the different groups that answer the survey (advertisers, agencies and affiliate marketers) to see if there are variations in attitudes toward search amongst them.

Wake-Up Call for SEM Agencies

Last year, a key finding was the attitude of advertisers toward search marketing agencies. It was clear that there was a trust disconnect, with a full 65% looking to bring both paid and organic search capabilities in-house. For SEM agencies, it was a clear signal to up the ante in terms of measurable results.

We spend a fair amount of time in the survey digging into how companies conduct their search campaigns, the percentage that’s done in-house versus outsourced, whether this is a growth strategy for them, and trying to determine some of the hidden costs, such as the expense of internal staff to conduct the campaigns.

And of Course, There are Those Click Costs

One of the hottest data points from the survey tends to be around acceptance of current bid prices. Again, we get quite granular in determining the extent of price elasticity on paid placement. Last year, we saw a flattening out, with 21% of advertisers saying they were maxed out on bid prices, and another 37% saying they could go as high as 10 to 20% more.

If you want to find out more about the 2005 findings, make sure you visit the Learning Center at http://www.SEMPO.org.

Hot Off the Spreadsheet

So, how is the data shaping up this year? Well, I just pinged our number crunchers–and based on the results in so far, it looks like organic optimization is holding the lead as the most popular strategy when it comes to search. Last year, it barely edged out paid placement, with 80% of respondents saying they were using it, compared to 76% of respondents using paid placement. This year, adoption of both strategies increased, with 83% of respondents using organic optimization, and 80% using paid placement. Remember, this is very preliminary data, and will likely change a bit as we get more survey completions. We have a few other preliminary data points that we’ll be sharing in Chicago next week at Search Engine Strategies. Look for the SEMPO event, Monday, Dec. 4t at 6 p.m.

Call to Action

If you’re working in search, we need your participation. The more respondents, the better the data. Everyone will have access to a summary of the report, and SEMPO members can download the full report. Once again, you can take the survey at http://www.sempo.org/learning_center/research/sempo_research/sempo_2006_state.

Search Gets Passionate in Vegas

First published November 16, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

I’m a huge fan of passion. Curb the urge to snigger. When I say passion, I refer to it in the ideological way, not the sensual one (although I’m pretty fond of that as well). I believe passion trumps everything else: intelligence, education, money, social connections. Look at times when people have really moved the world in a meaningful way, and you’ll always find passion.

3 Degrees of Passion

In the past week, passion has manifested itself to me in three very different ways.

First of all, I sat for two hours while former President Bill Clinton talked about his Foundation, his view of the world as an interdependent global village and the unsustainable inequities between North America and everywhere else that must be addressed. The presentation was smooth and friendly, but the passion was palpable. This was a man on a mission. Clinton’s got some burning issues on his agenda, and I have to believe he’s going to move the world and make them happen.

This morning, I was at Webmaster World’s PubCon in Las Vegas and Guy Kawasaki took the stage. Kawasaki has passion. In fact, it was the subject of one of his 10 takeaways: “Make Meaning. Do something that matters. Be passionate.”

Later in the day, I met with a product manager in charge of a new search platform. He was supposed to give me a feature run-through, and I was supposed to give user feedback. Try as we did to stick to that agenda, we kept getting sidetracked talking about how search is changing everything. We became more animated as we talked. Passion snuck in and kept hijacking the conversation. We ran about an hour over what we had scheduled.

Search: Passion to Spare

That’s what I love about search, especially where it sits today. It breeds passion. It demands passion. It grabs you by the throat and makes you realize that it could change everything. I suspect there was a time when Wired ex-editor John Battelle didn’t let search keep him up at night. But at some point, he looked at what was happening, and more importantly, what could happen and said, “Damn, [if you know John, I suspect this wasn’t the exact word he used], this is changing the world!” He became passionate about search. That’s probably why he’s also here, in Vegas with a bunch of Web-heads, as one of the keynotes.

When you walk down the halls of a show like this, people are talking about search. We’re ravenous about this topic. That’s why there are back-to-back events filling the calendar from January to December. Just this week, I wanted to be at the Search Insider Summit, but unfortunately it coincided with PubCon and I had a previous commitment.

Talk to the people at Google, or Yahoo. They know they’re the cusp of the future. They know the import of what they do. They’re fired with passion. Why didn’t I include Microsoft? To me, the passion for search isn’t seared into the corporate DNA at Microsoft to the same extent it is at its rivals. They’ve said the right things about search. I’ve met a lot of people at Microsoft who get search, and many of them are passionate. But at the other two major engines, the passion for search is pervasive. At Microsoft, it still feels more like a corporate initiative.

Late to the Party? Look for Passion

When you look at the people who make this industry tick, they are absolutely infatuated with search. It borders on obsession. It’s not to make a buck, because believe me, there are easier ways. We’ve been slogging it out in the trenches for years, going from show to show, spreading the gospel, educating clients and bit by bit, building best practices and pushing the industry forward. There are not a lot of rich search marketers, but there are bushels of passionate ones.

So, for those of you waking up to search, here’s a tip. If you’re an agency or a large organization that wants to build search capabilities, look for passion. Don’t just look for someone competent, look for someone who can become passionate about search. Because that’s what it will take. Here’s why.

Search is just beginning. The rules are constantly going to change. What you do today is not what you’re going to do tomorrow. This is not a 9-to-5 job. The only way you can keep up with the pace of change that’s inevitable is to live, eat and breathe search. You have to be constantly looking at the horizon to see what’s coming–not just because you have to, but because you can’t imagine doing anything else. As search continues to define itself, it will be the passionate people who do it. As I sit here in Vegas, that’s probably the safest bet in town.

The Coming Storm: Search and Consumer Privacy

First published November 9, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Earlier this week, in OnlineSpin, Seana Mulcahy wrote about two new complaints filed by consumer groups with the Federal Trade Commission. The shadowy subjects of tracking online behavior, analytics and targeting are outlined in the complaints.

Earlier this year, in an interview, I predicted a showdown between search engines and consumers around privacy issues. I suspect these two complaints could be the harbinger of the coming storm.

The Natural Convergence of Search and Behavioral Targeting

It makes all kinds of sense for the worlds of search and behavioral targeting to overlap, and the conjunction of those two worlds is a very powerful place indeed for the marketer. Behavioral targeting allows you to track and target potential customers based on their click stream. You can identify promising click streams based on sites visited and behavior on those sites. The odds of picking the right person at the right time to receive your message go up substantially.

Now let’s look at search. At some point in the buying cycle, which is mirrored by the click stream, almost all consumers will turn to a search engine to look for more information. This is a rather momentous point. At the earliest occurrence, it often indicates when the consumer switches from awareness to consideration. It’s when they become actively engaged in the act of purchasing, which puts them in a whole new mindset. From that point forward, they could turn back to the search engine at different times to assist them in the purchase. The key is that consumers who are using a search engine are very receptive to information about the product or service, because they’ve requested that information. Push turns to pull.

 

The Challenge with Search

The problem with search right now is knowing where the consumer is–at which touch pointIs it early in the cycle, near the beginning of the consideration phase, when consumers are compiling candidates for their consideration set? Is it somewhere in the middle, when they’ve assembled their set and are comparing features or looking for reviews? Is it when they’re ready to purchase? It’s almost impossible to tell from the query, because as past comScore studies have shown, there is often not a search funnel. The same query could be used at each point in the cycle.

Given this inability to disambiguate intent from the query, most marketers aim for the sure bet. They go for the purchase, because it’s much easier to track conversions and ROI. Do a search right now on any engine for “digital cameras” and look at the sponsored ads that appear. I guarantee they’ll be aimed at someone ready to purchase. Is this the query you would use if you had done your research and were ready to purchase one specific model? Would you even buy online? Probably not. But it is the query you would use if you were starting to consider your options.

You’re not alone. The marketers on the results page are missing over 80% of potential buyers by focusing on the less than 5% who are ready to buy now. It’s just not a good match-up for the advertiser or the consumer.

Enter BT

Now, if you were able to combine behavioral targeting with that all- important search touch point, you could serve a research-based ad if you knew at what stage in the buying cycle the consumer was, based on his online visits. You could take the guesswork of matching the message to the person. And finally, we could start to pull away from the pure direct response tactics that restrict the effectiveness of search. It’s tremendously powerful.

This is not something in the far-distant future. The mechanisms are already in place for search engines to track your online behavior. Tool bars, mini apps, personal search history. All of these can and do track where you’ve been. Everybody is being tracked to some degree.

But as Seana pointed out in her column, most of us are blissfully unaware of it. That’s because it’s been relatively benign to this point. In return for a handy tool bar that offers increased convenience, the ability to index your desktop and other added functionality, we just click the accept button without really reading what we’re accepting. Up to now, there hasn’t seemed to be any consequences. But in the background, the engines are quietly collecting terabytes of click-stream data. And the time is coming when that data will be put to use.

Privacy Storm Front

At first, it will be subtle and a little unsettling. The search ads we’ll be seeing will be targeted much more precisely. They will seem to speak just to us. It will be like the advertiser is reading our mind. We’ll be thrilled at first, but eventually, we’ll read an article somewhere that will explain the uncanny ability of the advertiser to give us just the right message. It’s because they’ve been watching us, tracking what we do online. And it won’t just be on search, it will be throughout the search engine’s advertising networks.

“Hmmm” you’ll say to yourself, “I’m not sure I’m okay with that.”

More and more consumer groups will launch protests. Politicians will sense opportunity and jump on their soapboxes. There will be a very vocal minority that will rail against this “Big Brotherism.” There will also be a group of advertisers that will continue to step way beyond the acceptable, using targeting to subvert the user experience, rather than enhance it, hijacking the user and taking them to places they never intended. This will add fuel to the fire. And because they’re the most visible target, the search engines will bear the brunt of the attack.

In the end, we’ll realize there’s much more pro than con here. Effective targeting will generally add to our experience, not take away from it. We’ll toy with trying to use a third-party privacy filter, but in the end, most of us won’t be willing to give up the additional functionality in return for maintaining an illusion of anonymity online. Much of the usefulness of Web 2.0 (I know, I hate the term too, but at least it’s commonly understood) will be dependent on capturing personal and click-stream data. We’ll give in, and the storm will gradually fade away on the horizon.

At least, that’s my prediction.

Thou Shalt Not Google (unless it’s on Google)

First published November 2, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

goo-gle: Function: transitive verb: to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web
–Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Of all the things that Google’s lawyers have in their basket, apparently stamping out inappropriate use of “Google” as a verb is right on top of the stack. It apparently irks them no end.Now, I can really sympathize here. It’s a little known fact that my last name has actually suffered the same fate as Google. In Japan, of all places, Hotchkiss has become the generic name for the office stapler. Each time a worker lost in the maze of cubicles at Mitsui and Co. says, “Pass me the Hotchkiss” I die a little inside. I kid you not! Check out Wikipedia.Mind your Ps and GooglesNow, according to a post on Google’s official blog, it’s not the fact that we Google on Google that causes the Google legal department to have hissy fits. It’s if we try Googling on Yahoo and MSN. It can’t be done. Not all tissue papers are Kleenex, not all copy machines are Xeroxes. To quote the post:

You can only “Google” on the Google search engine. If you absolutely must use one of our competitors, please feel free to “search” on Yahoo or any other search engine.

Hmmm..people are using the word “Google” to refer to Google’s competitors, and it’s Google that’s upset? Unless I’m missing something here, shouldn’t it be Yahoo and MSN that should be miffed?

I Google, therefore I am…

The inclusion of Google in the English lexicon is “faintly unsettling,” according to the folks at Google. They fear that Google will lose its identity as a trademark once it slips into common usage. They explain:

A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device that identifies a particular company’s products or services. Google is a trademark identifying Google Inc. and our search technology and services. While we’re pleased that so many people think of us when they think of searching the web, let’s face it, we do have a brand to protect, so we’d like to make clear that you should please only use “Google” when you’re actually referring to Google Inc. and our services.

Now, I know that Google has way too much money, and they have a team of very bright 12-year-old lawyers (or at least, they look 12) trying to reinvent the law. But in this case, I would suggest slipping down to the Google cafeteria for a double decaf low fat cappuccino and relaxing. There are better windmills to tilt at than this one.

Once again, who’s in control?

The irony here is that the very entity that has probably done more than any other to put control in the hands of the consumer is now fretting because consumers are exercising that control. We associate search with Google. We endorse the brand by using it as a verb. It’s just this critical mass that makes Google such a formidable competitor in the highly promising search market. Frankly, it’s not the fact that their brands became generic terms that hurt many of the companies that Google uses as examples. It’s because the companies became complacent and let the competition catch up, losing the distinction that their brand once afforded them. The consumers didn’t take the brand away from the company, the company surrendered the brand to the competition.

In the corporate culture that says “don’t be evil,” apparently improper use of “Googling” is now defined as evil. Just to make it clear, Merriam-Webster defines evil as “morally reprehensible.”.  Perhaps someday “google” will also mean “to spend one’s time unproductively fighting frivolous legal battles.” At this point, it’s a toss-up with “disney.”

A final word to Google’s legal team: As you’re putting together those multi-page lawsuits, go ahead and feel free to use the Hotchkiss. I don’t mind.

Thoughts on the Search Tornado: The Chasm Revisited

First published October 26, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

While pondering topics for this week’s column, I was in a quandary. I could join the 1.65 billion people who are penning about the GoogTube deal. I could do something timely about Danny Sullivan’s decision to stick it out with Incisive and Search Engine Strategies for a little longer (yes, if you haven’t heard, it appears they’ve kissed and made up, kind of, and Danny will be around for the New York, San Jose and Chicago conferences, although he’ll be transitioning to a new chair) or I could chat about meeting Marissa Mayer last week (albeit briefly), the person in charge of user experience at Google.

I pick… none of the above!

I’ll loop back to Marissa in a later column, but I’m angling for an interview to talk about some of the things I’ve learned in my rather obsessive detailing of user behavior on Google, so put that on the back shelf for now.

Instead, I’m continuing to pick up the thread from last week’s column. The idea of search marketing crossing the chasm perked up a few ears, notably amongst financial analysts, so I thought I’d spend a little more time exploring the concept and what it means for search. Ironically, the day after the column ran, Google was heading for a new stock high and I was scrambling from building to building and meeting to meeting at the Google complex in Mountain View. I must say, everyone seemed to be smiling. I think the surge in stock prices had everything to do with my column running and nothing to do with their quarterly earning report, but some may argue differently.

If search marketing is indeed crossing the chasm, there are some rather interesting aspects to look at.

Who’s Crossing First?

The ideal strategy for crossing chasms is to gain critical mass in a particular vertical, and then market to adjacent markets that share similar pains, gradually reaching the tipping point where everybody jumps on board. Geoffrey Moore refers to this as the Bowling Alley strategy, hitting the head pin and knocking down the adjacent ones.

Search is well down this road (or alley). Over the last few years, search has gained this critical mass in the verticals that tend to be proficient in direct response marketing. Categories like travel are heavy users of search, and we’re starting to see this extend into areas such as consumer electronics, software and other B2C consumer categories.  Hard on the heels of these head pin categories are financial services and automotive. These verticals will be the first to jump.

It will take longer for search to gain critical mass in the B2B sectors, but the early adopters in these verticals are already laying the foundations.

The last to cross will be the local Mom and Pop shops. There are still some challenges to be addressed in gaining local traction, the most notable being a lack of a quality Web presence. But every month that goes by, the functionality of online local search increases to the point where it will be the users driving adoption, since local businesses can no longer ignore the fact that this is where people are searching prior to purchasing. And this is where search can open up vast tracts of unexplored potential.

Reducing the Pain With a Total Solution

Another trend that is becoming more apparent is the assembling of a total solution. The chasm can only be crossed when a significant portion of pain and risk is eliminated from the equation. Early adopters can stomach this, but pragmatists will avoid it like the plague.

The early markets are comfortable with cobbling together pieces of solution from disparate sources, providing the glue that holds them together and investing significant resources in coming up with an advantage over their competitors. This is exactly where search is right now. You need a pretty savvy inside person who can make search click for most organizations. It’s still far from a turnkey solution.

But look at what’s currently happening with the engines: The belated release of Yahoo’s Panama platform. New targeting capabilities from MSN. Google’s offering of free analytics and landing page optimization tools. All these speak to one goal: eliminate the pain for a mainstream market by assembling a total solution. The engines are putting together the package they need to appeal to a mainstream buyer.

Who’s the Gorilla?

The biggest question: Who will the winner be? There can only be one 800-pound gorilla, despite all the talk from the three engines that there’s more than enough market to go around. Google’s current marginalization of Yahoo’s business model speaks to this. The fact is, the marketers will crown the winner, based primarily on market share, which is dictated on the best user experience. Google wins this battle hands down. While it seems as if the engines have up to now been willing to cede the pole position to Google, if they don’t want to end up in the chorus, they have to get serious about this race. It goes quickly–and right now, Google has a huge head start. I’m beginning to think it may be uncatchable. Perhaps that share price isn’t as ridiculous as it seems.

I drop one last King Kong-sized hint for the engines. You can’t pay enough attention to the user experience. And right now, Google’s eating your lunch, and your afternoon snack. Ad management platforms only matter if you have a market to target the ads to.

What This Means for SEMs

So, if we’re crossing the chasm, do SEMs get shut out? No, in fact, the opportunity has never been greater. We can ride along with the main players in this chasm crossing, the engines. But we have to be nimble and fleet of foot. There are plenty of opportunities to add value along the chain as the engines assemble the total solution. But remember, the aim of the total solution is to reduce the pain points, not increase them. Therefore, the engines will be working hard to identify where mainstream buyers experience pain and try to introduce new solutions to eliminate it. That means if a SEM finds a spot where they can add value, i.e. bid management, they have to be prepared for the engines to introduce a solution and wipe out their business model overnight. Another strategy is for SEMs to gain deep vertical expertise in one particular industry, because the engines will be caught in a vortex of demand and will be stretched far too thin to be all things to all people.

So there will be a lot of opportunity, but be prepared for it to be transitory. While this holds true for service-based SEMs, it applies to a much greater degree to technology developers. Sure, this might make it tough to navigate, but if the tornado develops, you really have no choice. Either you hang on for the ride, or you sink.

Thoughts on 18 Months with SEMPO

I’m noticing my blogging will power is directly related to my current slate of activities. October has been a busy month for me, with travel and some different initiatives here at Enquiro. As much as I try to schedule some time to post some thoughts, I keep finding things getting pushed back. I’ve got a file crammed with stuff to review to see if it’s comment worthy.

A quick update is certainly in order though. Two weeks ago I was at SEMPO’s planning retreat in New York. I have to give a shout out to Dana Todd and the BOD both last year and this year. The organization is making substantial progress on many fronts and has come a long way. Now, this is to take nothing away from the original board. You know, I was one of the ones that criticized some of those early decisions. As I’ve said in numerous interviews, I don’t think the story of SEMPO is that of revolution but rather evolution. Barbara Coll and the original board got the job done. They got SEMPO off the ground, they build some incredibly valuable relationships and they laid the foundation for the organization as it currently sits. You don’t get an industry organization off the ground in a climate as charged as the search marketing industry without rubbing some people the wrong way. And sure, there were strong personalities on both sides..that’s what makes this business fun. But you know what? There are many who would have thrown in the towel and said this ain’t worth it. Barbara stuck in and handed over a fully functional organization to last year’s board. It was an organization that was still defining itself, but it was well off the ground. I for one don’t think Barb ever got the recognition she deserved for that.

The other part of the SEMPO story is that we all had different expectations for what the organization would become. Some wanted it to police SEO’s, some wanted it to be a lead generator, and some just wanted parties and free booze. As the organization has evolved, those disconnects in expectations have largely corrected themselves. Where the disconnect was too great, members have gone their own way. But the majority of members have learned, as has SEMPO, and we’ve found middle ground. Do we have it perfect yet? Not by a long shot, but we’re trying to do more things right than wrong.

SEMPO is finding its voice and building its franchise. Our State of the Market Survey is in its third year as we’re working towards launch. We had full participation of the major publishers this year, as they recognize that this has become the definitive year over year snapshot of the industry. We’re launched a scaled back version for the European Market. We’re working with Fair Isaac on the Click Fraud issue, again with the participation of the major engines, to try to get a fair estimation of the scope of the problem through an objective third party. And, perhaps most importantly, we’re forging strong relationships between the engines and search marketers, and to attempt to democratize those relationships, opening up the communication lines with smaller shops who may not be handling the budgets to give them a guaranteed ear with the Googles, MSN’s and Yahoo’s of the world.

There will always be the inevitable comments about SEMPO board members doing this for their own benefit. Having been on both sides of this comment, I have my own perspective, which I’m happy to share. There is certainly no monetary reward, and I put in about 20 to 30 hours a month on various SEMPO tasks as the Chair and as the Research Chair. Do I get some increased exposure? Probably, but to be honest, I get a lot more exposure through Enquiro’s research initiatives (something I have to start devoting more time too). The biggest benefit I receive from being on the board is the networking opportunities. Participation with SEMPO has allowed me to meet some interesting people, both at the engines and at other agencies.

A year and a half ago, I was one of the ones bitching in the hallways of SES. I made a choice: either keep bitching from the outside, or jump in and get involved. In the past 18 months, I was able to accomplish some of the things I wanted to do, but I also got the chance to have my perspective changed a bit. These are good, smart people, doing good, smart things. They’re making a difference in this industry.

Okay..off my soap box. I’m going to turn comments on for a little bit. Feel free to let me know your perspective on SEMPO..good or bad. You have the Chair’s ear.