Author Archives: ghotchkiss

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.

All Hands on Deck! Search Marketing is Crossing the Chasm

First published October 19, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Last week, I gathered in New York with 12 other search marketers for SEMPO’s twice-yearly planning retreat. To kick off, we did a bit of brainstorming about the current state of the search marketing industry. Observations included the current build-or-buy-search- marketing-capabilities dilemma faced by the big agencies, the red-hot demand for anyone with search marketing experience, the sudden development of search marketing in-house groups in large organizations, and the current push for industry-wide certification of SEM practitioners.

Also, more than a few at the table mentioned that they’ve noticed a significant change in the prospects they’re talking to–and the contact points within those companies. Today, our sales leads are more often Fortune 1000s than the latest online start-up. With increasing frequency, we’re starting to get C-level interest at the table when talk turns to search.

“My God!” I thought to myself as we jotted our observations down on a flip chart, “Search is crossing the chasm!”

Chasm Dead Ahead

Geoffrey Moore’s book Crossing the Chasm belongs on that small and select shelf of “must-reads” in technology marketing. It explores the fundamental break between early adopter and mainstream markets, and why so many companies founder in trying to make the transition between the two. For the ones that do, the reward is a sudden firestorm of demand.

Exactly three years ago now, I wrote a column asking if search marketing had crossed the chasm yet. My conclusion, (reinforced by a note of endorsement from Moore) was that search marketing had yet to do this. Until recently, I still thought we were squarely in the early adopter camp. Either search was practiced by aggressive, early adopter companies or by individuals in larger organizations that fit the early adopter profile. Budgets allocated to search by most “mainstream” organizations made it clear that it was an interesting experiment of limited scope, nothing more.

Calling All Pragmatists

But it seems that the climate is changing. One thing to remember about mainstream markets is that when they move, they tend to do so en masse. Search marketing is starting to show the early signs of a marketing channel that’s ready to make the leap from early adopters to mainstream markets.

What does this mean for search? First of all, search is too limiting a definition. There is a built-in inventory bottleneck with search that will keep it from meeting the demand that will be generated when large advertisers move large budgets into the arena. People only search so much. The relatively tame growth curve of search usage will soon be outstripped by the steep incline of advertiser demand.

So we look to two additional markets that will move across the chasm in lockstep with search. I’ll call them by more generic, all-inclusive labels. First of all, there’s “consumer-initiated marketing.” Search is the literal embodiment of this, but the search publishers will be finding other ways to enable consumers to reach out and connect with advertisers on the consumers’ timeline, not the advertisers’. Secondly, there’s “targeted accountable marketing.” These are the channels that allow advertising messages to be more precisely targeted through behaviors, geography, demographics or areas of contextual interest, providing unprecedented accountability to the advertiser. Every single search publisher is heavily invested in this area, and this will continue.

The Local Search Wildcard

Another category of new advertising inventory that will begin to crack in 2007, and will turn into a flood in 2008, is local search. According to InfoUSA and the Kelsey Group, there are about 350,000 Web-based businesses in the US, and 4 million businesses with a brochure-ware site. That leaves almost 10 million businesses without a Web site at all. That’s a total of almost 15 million businesses. There are no hard numbers for Google’s advertiser base, but an educated guess would put it somewhat north of 300,000. So, even with businesses with a Web site, that means Google only has 6.9% market penetration currently. If it seems like search marketing is old-hat and everybody’s doing it, it’s probably because you’re an early adopter and so are the people you hang out with. Add the businesses without Websites, most of which are only interested in local markets, and that penetration drops to an infinitesimal 2.3%. That’s a ton of upside potential which all sits in the local market, currently throwing its money at other channels, such as the yellow pages, newspaper and radio.

And You Thought Google Had Too Much Money Now?

Let’s do a little more math. Based on Google’s reported revenue of approximately $6 billion, that averages out to about $20,000 per advertiser. That may sound impressive until you remember that a substantial portion of Google’s advertisers are large, multi-million-dollar companies.

Let’s assume that over the next three years search marketing does cross the chasm, and Google manages to capture 50% of businesses with a Web site. Also, let’s assume that budgets loosen up substantially as search moves into the mainstream and more advertising options are open, increasing average spend up to $50,000. Neither of these predictions is overly optimistic, given a chasm-crossing scenario. And that doesn’t even touch the 10 million Web-less businesses that are likely prospects of local search, or the global market. That puts Google’s potential revenue at $208 billion. Currently, that would put Google at number 3 on the Fortune 500, right behind Exxon and Wal-Mart, and ahead of GM and Ford. Even if I’m wildly optimistic, those are numbers to pay attention to.

Rules for Making B2B Search Marketing More Successful, Part 2

First published October 12, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Last week, I presented the first five rules for making B2B search more successful. To recap, here they are:
1. Know who’s the buyer and who’s the influencer
2. Realize what the intent of the researcher is
3. Understand complex buying cycles and the possible touch points with search
4. Be prepared to build relationships with search leads
5. Don’t ask for too much too soon.

This week, I wrap up with the last five rules:

6. Understand the Complexity of the Keyword Universe. B2B marketplaces provide a significant challenge in determining the keywords used to find a product or service. These are often complex, non-commoditized solutions. In many cases, they’re new technology. This means that a common vocabulary hasn’t evolved around them. When you’re selling shoes, you know that everyone calls them shoes. But when you’re selling software that enables real time inventory tracking and just in time product delivery, the name tag you pin on that isn’t as easy.

First of all, there’s often a difference between what the vendor might call the product and what the potential customer might call it. And when it comes to intercepting search traffic, the customer is ALWAYS right. I don’t care what your internal rules are for referring to your product. I don’t care how you position yourself against the competitors and what your unique competitive advantage is, even if your marketing team has cleverly baked it right into your product name. It really doesn’t matter–if no one is searching for it. First match the vocabulary of your customer, and then worry about differentiating yourself.

The second challenge is that if you have a new solution, potential customers might not even know they’re looking for it. Often you have to position yourself at the pain point, or that of a more commonly known solution, and then try to divert them to your site. Just remember, the closer you can align to the customer’s thinking in your search listing messaging, the more successful you’ll be in capturing the click.

7. Know the roles of general and vertical search portals. The more complex the solution, the more likely it is that your potential customers will be researching their options online. This means that two distinct types of search portals will come into play. Early in the process, everyone will turn to his favorite search engine. And from past research, we know that the overwhelming winner in the B2B category is Google.

But complex purchases mean that prospects will want to check features and compare their alternatives. They’ll also want to see how others feel about your product and service. They’ll be looking for functionality and a depth of information that a general search property just can’t provide, and that is when they’ll go vertical.

The next step in the research process is to find the sites that list the alternatives and provide the opportunity to compare them head to head. And if you’re looking to intercept them, you should really be in both places.

To identify these all-important vertical properties, you can do three things. First of all, once you identify the right key phrases, do searches for them on the major engines, particularly Google. See which vertical reference sites come to the top of the listings. These are the ones your potential customers will be clicking through to. Secondly, ask your existing customers how they found you, and what sites they tend to refer to. Thirdly, use a service like Hitwise or comScore’s qSearch to find out what the heavily trafficked sites in your vertical are. Identify the most likely places to intercept your prospects.

 

 

8. Realize that education is a necessary evil. Much as we’d like the prospect to buy immediately, it just isn’t that likely in a complex buying situation. They’re going to be spending a lot of time researching and educating themselves on the ins and outs of your product and on what you can provide as a vendor. If you accept this as a given, then you can start tailoring your search campaign to facilitate it.

Remember that the intent of search visitors will usually be education, not purchase. Make sure you’re giving them this option. Make the education path a rich relationship development pipeline, not an obstacle path that has to be navigated. Encourage further education opportunities through your landing pages.

But–and this is vitally important–don’t offer so many possible paths that the visitor gives up and abandons the site. Use effective branching and messaging to allow users to get to what they’re looking for without having to interpret a lot of corporate doublespeak and marketing jargon.

9. Be prepared to lose control. This one is a tough one for the sales department. Accept the fact that you’re not at the wheel, your prospect is. The fact that this is a complex sale, the fact that they’re looking for more information, and the fact that they’re going to be spending a long time in making their decision all indicate they’ll be setting their own pace and contacting you when they’re ready.

Embrace and facilitate this. Understand where a search-generated lead will be entering your pipeline. Know what they’ll be looking for. Be comfortable letting them guide the relationship and give them every opportunity to build that relationship. This is much more like farming than hunting. Plant the seeds, nurture them and let nature take its course. If you try to force the prospect’s hand, you could push them right into the arms of your competitors.

10. Understand the buying process of your prospect, but don’t surrender to it. The bigger and more complex the sale, the more cumbersome the buying process. The better you understand this process, the more likely you will be to make the process work in your favor.

If what you sell typically goes to RFP, help facilitate the process, but stack the odds in your favor. Help the prospect define the core set of criteria, ensuring that your unique competitive advantage is on the list. If they’re coming to you after they already have their preferred vendor, redefine the pain in a way that puts you at an advantage. This means maintaining a tricky balance between being helpful and not being too obvious in pushing your sales message. The best way to maintain this balance is to step through the paths you’re presenting to your prospects in their mindset. Be mindful of the process they’re going through, and see if you’re presenting a path that’s helpful and believable.

Using search as a B2B lead-gen channel provides some unique challenges, but it can be very powerful. These are purchases that require a significant amount of online research. We know that’s a perfect fit for search, but just be prepared to be patient for the payoff.

10 Rules for Making B2B Search Marketing More Successful

First published October 5, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

The business-to-business marketplace is infinitely more complex, and therefore, more challenging, than most of the business-to-consumer verticals. This reality extends into search marketing as well. Take the fact that B2B usually means complex sales (especially when it involves search as a potential lead generation channel) and then layer on the realities that for sales that are driven by organizations rather than individuals, one sale can involve multiple roles, including stakeholders with different needs–and most B2B sales can take months, or even years. It can be a daunting task, which is why there are not many search marketing providers that have hung their shingles in the B2B marketplace.

We’ve learned firsthand some of the realities of marketing in the B2B arena through research and working with clients. In the interest of making the path a little less bloody, I’ll share the Top 10 things we’ve learned. This week, I’ll focus on the top five hints:

1. Know who’s the buyer and who’s the influencer. The biggest challenge with B2B transactions is that you’re not talking to one buyer. Research (Matbuy, 1981) has shown that there are as many as six different roles–including the user, initiator, influencer, gatekeeper, decider and buyer–in most B2B purchase decisions. To make matters worse, these roles may not be filled by a single person, but a group of individuals, or, heaven forbid, a committee (tangential comment: how do you calculate the average IQ of a committee? Take the lowest IQ in the group and divide it by the number of people in the committee!) To complicate matters, each committee member has different levels of influence, takes part at different times, and has different perspectives and needs.

Usually, the buyer and decider are pretty far removed in the organization from the user, and the larger the organization, the bigger the gap. That means that the people making contact with the vendor have at least 3 degrees of separation (user:initiator:influencer:gatekeeper:decider) from the person who will actually be using the product or service. In search, it becomes vital to know who the person is who will be using the search engine.

2. Realize what the intent of the researcher is. In our original study into the use of search in B2B buying decisions, we found that those most apt to use a search engine are the influencers, followed by the initiator, the user and then the decider. An actual buyer is very unlikely to turn to a search engine. Search is most often used to research the purchase alternatives, set the criteria and possibly dig up facts on potential vendors. The sweet spot is the person who’s assigned the task of researching and short-listing the potential alternatives. Remember, they’re going to be looking for column A, B and C vendors to give the selection committee the alternatives they need to match their buying process. This means that even if there is a pre-existing vendor relationship, this diligent individual will be using a search engine to dig up “column fodder,” another name for those other candidates that can be used to grind the preferred vendor (the column fodder tag is courtesy Michael Bosworth, Solution Selling). More about how to combat this next week.

 

The important point here is to realize the intent of the person most likely to be using a search engine. It’s not to make vendor contact. Remember, the actual decision of which vendor the organization will be going with will rest with someone else. It’s the influencer’s job to gather the data, compile it and pass it on. That’s their intent, and it’s the path you have to provide them when they land on your site.

3. Understand complex buying cycles and the possible touch points with search. Complex buying cycles that are common in B2B means there’s a lot of back and forth between a prospect and a vendor, with multiple touch points as the cycle progresses. That has a host of implications for the vendor, but there are some that are specific to search. We already talked about the likelihood of the influencer/designated researcher turning to a search engine. But there are other touch points where search could be used.

At the user level, when awareness of the need first dawns, there might be use of a search engine to see if a solution exists. If this is the case, the terminology might be significantly different than the common industry terms (more about this next week). Another place search might be used is at the decision level, where the decider is double checking on details on a particular criteria–i.e. terms of service agreements, other clients, payment terms, etc. These searchers will be very specific and navigational in nature.

4. Be prepared to build relationships with search leads. In the case of a complex B2B sale, a lead generated through a search referral is just the beginning. The ideal scenario is to qualify the lead as quickly as possible and transition it seamlessly into a rich relationship development pipeline. Depending on the nature of the sale, it might be appropriate to get it in the hands of a customer representative for follow-up, or you might want to continue to build the lead through less resource-intensive means (i.e. targeted e-mail follow-ups and communication), and nurture it before the initial point of contact. Whatever your follow-up process, make sure it matches the needs and goals of individual prospects.

5. Don’t ask for too much too soon. One of the biggest mistakes made by marketers is to push for too much information too soon. Remember the nature of those that will be coming to your site to research. They’re browsing online because they’re not ready to initiate contact with a vendor. In many cases, they haven’t even assembled their short list, so they are still several steps away from wanting to talk to a sales rep, even if they were the right person (which they usually aren’t).

Don’t force them to pick up the phone to learn more about your solution, and don’t force them to fill out a 25-field form. Give them the path of least resistance to accomplish their objective, which is to gather information to help them qualify their buying decision in a clear and easily transferable format. As tempting as it is to capture the lead and turn your sales people loose, in most cases if you jump too soon you’ll be spinning your wheels with the wrong contact and possibly scaring them off.

Coming next week, rules 6 through 10:
6. Understand the complexity of the keyword universe;
7. Know the roles of general and vertical search portals;
8. Realize that education is a necessary evil;
9. Be prepared to lose control; and
10. Understand the buying process of your prospect, but don’t surrender to it.

What is Web 2.0?

It’s probably the emptiest catch phrase since the Information Highway. Everybody refers to the Web 2.0 but nobody really knows what that means anymore. The folks at PEW Internet tried to sort that out in the Future of the Internet II report I blogged about earlier. More and more, it seems that the Web 2.0 is used to refer to everything that is wrong with the Web 1.0: it’s not interactive enough, it’s not useful enough, it’s not democratic enough, it’s not engaging enough.

I think the problem is that by it’s very nature, the Web defies definition. It’s the largest organic being on the planet. It’s all encompassing and is enmeshed into society, business, government and every other aspect of our every day lives. So to try to define a new generation of the web through some technical criteria becomes impossible. There is no versioning on the web, because versioning implies some centralization of control. The beautify of the web is that it is organic and grows from the ground up. There is no one controlling body that defines what’s in scope and what’s out of scope. We all define our own scope.

Web 2.0 could refer to the explosion of consumer generated content (and if consumers are doing the generating, doesn’t that preclude them from being consumers?). It could refer to the new social hubs of the net like MySpace and YouTube. It could refer to the proliferation of web delivered applications. In fact, it refers to all this, but the beast has outgrown the name tag that we’re trying to pin on it. Web 2.0 doesn’t really mean anything, because something as vast and amorphous as the Web defies pigeon holing.

A Place for Pay-Per-Call

First published September 27, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

People who buy radiators online are unique. For one thing, they don’t really research their purchases beforehand. When your radiator blows up, you know you need a new one–fast! Secondly, when you’re shopping for a new radiator, it’s not a click and buy type of item. You pretty much need to talk to someone who knows their stuff, because every single make and model of car may have two or three radiators that could fit. As John Thys, president of Radiator.com says, it’s a different market. And for this market, pay-per-call is just the right thing.

“Every lead for us ends in a phone call,” says Thys. “It’s always what we’re driving towards. We need to speak to our customers. So pay-per-call is by far our most cost-effective channel. The quality of these leads is way ahead of pay-per-click.”

Pay-per-call is an alternative channel that’s growing rapidly. The Kelsey Group estimates this market will more than double for the next five years, with revenues topping 3.7 billion by 2010. That makes it a revenue producing opportunity which more and more online publishers are beginning to pay attention to.

Ingenio really pioneered the idea of the search-based pay-per-call market, and I had a chance to chat with CMO Marc Barach. “We seamlessly bridge the Internet and the telephone,” Barach says. “And for a lot of businesses, that’s a perfect match.” The pairing of old and new communication technologies does open four distinct opportunities for both Ingenio and advertisers.

Four places for pay-per-call:

First of all, businesses that don’t have a Web site. Pay-per-call allows them to tap into search as a source of lead generation, yet field the lead in an effective way (conversion rates in some categories are eight times what are typical for pay-per-click ads). And for Ingenio and its competitors, that’s a vast market. InfoUSA and the Kelsey Group estimate there’s about 350,000 Web-based businesses, with another 4 million businesses with so called “brochure-ware” sites. That leaves almost 10 million businesses with no Web site at all, many of them local businesses.

The second opportunity takes advantage of the nature of longer buying cycle. At certain points in that buying cycle, consumers appreciate different options in contacting vendors. Early in a high-consideration purchase, consumers prefer to remain anonymous and quietly kick tires on Web sites. But at some point, they may search online with the intention of finding a way to contact a vendor, and in that case, a pay-per-call ad provides them with exactly the right message at the right time.

The third opportunity is moving lead generation off the desktop to a phone near you. Pay-per-call adapts nicely to 411 directory assistance platforms and mobile use. Other potential expansion markets include podcasts, radio and TV.

The fourth opportunity is the one that Thys at Radiator.com is taking advantage of. There are certain items or services that are needed suddenly, without advance warning. And by their nature, they require interactive contact with a knowledgeable service representative. This is prime yellow page territory, but increasingly, the bulkiness and geographic limitations of the printed directory are being supplanted by online versions. While Radiator.com acts like the local radiator wholesaler, it does business around the country. Pay-per-call is the perfect match.

Calling all search engines!

While Thys still does pay-per-click because of the sheer volume of leads it produces, he also loves the effectiveness of pay-per-call. “There’s no comparison. Pay-per-call’s conversions and quality of lead blow pay-per-click away. If I could get pay-per-call leads from where I’m getting pay-per-click ones, I’d be in a much better place,” he says.

And that’s the current challenge for Ingenio. As Thys says, “It’s all about the networks.” You need to get these compelling calls to action in front of a critical mass of motivated consumers. Currently, Ingenio’s distribution network includes online yellow page directories and AOL. The AOL deal was a major turning point for pay-per-call, especially since AOL carved off the prime real estate of the search results page for Ingenio, right at the top of the listings. But Barach has his sites set on expanding that network substantially over the near future. He won’t be alone. Google is quietly testing pay-per-call as well, and it would make tremendous sense to incorporate it in its local listings.

Pay-per-call has its feet firmly set in both the new and old worlds of marketing, and that makes it very appealing for a large number of consumers and marketers. For consumers, it gives them a quick way to connect with a vendor and start an old-fashioned dialogue. And for marketers and sales professionals, it gives them a sense of control. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard the comment from a traditional salesperson: “I just want them (the consumer) to call me. Once I get them on the phone, I can sell them.” The balance of power on pay-per-click ads is far too much on the side of the consumer to make these sales professionals feel comfortable. With pay-per-call, the ball’s back in their court.

Microsoft Too Long in the Tooth to Play Online?

Bambi Francisco indicates that Microsoft might just be too old, too slow, too stodgy and, dare we say it, too bulky to play with the youngsters in the online sandbox any more. She points to the new YouTube clone, Soapbox, that Microsoft is rolling out.

You know, I’m starting to agree with Bambi. I’ve always said don’t count Microsoft out, because I still remember what they did to Netscape, but they seem to be lagging further and further behind the cutting edge. Increasingly, the game is being taken out of the courts they tend to dominate in. It’s okay to be late to the party if you’re bringing the beer, but increasingly, Microsoft is showing up with a case of empties (okay..maybe I’m stretching the analogy beyond the breaking point).

Is Microsoft finally becoming the dinosaur that everyone’s always accused them of being? Perhaps the world is changing too quickly for them to keep up. When’s the last innovation that rolled out of Redmond that wasn’t a pale and inferior imitation of something that already existed? One can’t help thinking that perhaps Bill Gates could see the writing on the wall and bailed when he could.