Author Archives: ghotchkiss

Farewell Search Insider. It’s Been Fun!

Note: This is my farewell column for MediaPost’s Search Insider.

476.

What’s significant about that number? Well, it’s a Harshad number. Math geeks can learn more here. For history buffs, it’s also the year in the Julian calendar when we switched from the Julian to the Anno Domini calendar. Generally, it’s when most historians say the Roman Empire fell and we went from ancient history to the Middle Ages.

It also happens to be the number of Search Insider columns I’ve written since my first appearance here 10 and a half years ago.

It’s been a good run. I’ve had fun. I’ve ranted the odd time. I’ve taken you with me on my family vacations. Most of all, I’ve had a ringside seat at the emergence of a true industry. In fact, that’s what my very first column was about – Search growing beyond the confines of a cottage industry into a real contender for ad budgets. Here’s how I ended that column:

Search will become much more sophisticated, and the price of entry to play the game may prove to be too expensive for many smaller providers. Alliances will form and total solutions will begin to emerge. Google and Yahoo! will have to address the huge amount of time and effort required to manage a large, sponsored search campaign. Real money will start to be invested and made.

And to think, one day I’ll be able to say I was there.

Well, I guess that day has arrived. In the next 5 years, according to Forrester, digital will surpass TV as the single biggest destination for marketing budgets and search will make up the lion’s share of that spend. Digital budgets combined are forecast to top $100 billion. I think that qualifies as “real money.”

But regular readers will also know that over the past 10 plus years, my columns have spent less and less time inside the “Search Insider” box. I’ve talked before about the artificiality of the way we’ve divided online up into channels. As our digital world has become richer and more robust, it’s become increasingly difficult to keep it compartmentalized into arbitrarily defined boxes. My personal interest has always centered on human behaviors and the rapidly growing intersection between behavior and technology. Search is part of that, but so is social and mobile and content and rich media and wearable technology and – well – you get the idea. Digital is a deeply and widely interwoven part of our lives. It makes up much of the context of our environment. Trying to talk only about one part of it would be like trying to describe the world by only writing about water.

At the end of 2014 (AD – just to keep our calendar references consistent), Ken Fadner, the publisher of MediaPost, asked me if I’d consider a move. I said yes. So this column – number 476 – will be my last one for the Search Insider. Starting next week, I’ll join the Online Spin lineup. It’s probably more appropriate. I haven’t been active in search marketing for the last 2 years. I’m hardly an “Insider” any more. I am, at best, a somewhat informed observer commenting from the sidelines. I think that can still be a useful perspective. I hope so. I will continue to write about the things that interest me: corporate strategy, human behavior, evolving cultures, digital technology – and yes, the odd rant.

So, for those of you who have been along for the ride for the last 10 and a half years, thanks for sticking around. When this ride started, there was no Facebook, no iPhone, no YouTube, no Twitter – and Google was just starting to figure out how to make some real money.

We’ve come a long way. But I suspect we’ve barely started. Maybe we’re even transitioning from one era to another. After all, it’s happened before when we’ve hit the number 476.

See you next Tuesday at Online Spin.

The Sorry State of Online Publishing

ss-publishingDynamic tension can be a good thing. There are plenty of examples of when this is so. Online publishing isn’t one of them. The plunging transaction costs of publishing and the increasingly desperate attempts to shore up some sort of sustainable revenue model is creating a tug-of-war that’s threatening to tear apart the one person that this whole sorry mess is revolving around – the reader. Somebody better get their act together soon, because I’m one reader that’s getting sick of it.

Trying to read an article on most online is like trying to tiptoe through a cognitive minefield. The publishers have squeezed every possible advertising opportunity onto the page and in doing so, has sacrificed credibility, cohesiveness and clarity. The job of publishing is communication, but these publishers seem to think its actually sacrificing communication for revenue. Methinks if you have to attack your own business model to make a profit, you should be taking a long hard look at said model.

Either Fish or Cut Click Bait

The problem has grown so pervasive that academia is even piling on. In the past few months, a number of studies have looked at the dismal state of online publishing.

clickbaitIn the quest for page views, publishers have mastered the trick of pushing our subconscious BSO (Bright Shiny Object) buttons with clickbait. Clickbait is essentially brain porn – headlines, often misleading – that you can’t resist clicking on. The theory is more page views – more advertising opportunities. The problem is that clickbait essential derails the mind from its predetermined focus. And worse, clickbait often distracts the brain with a misleading headline the subsequent article fails to deliver on. As Jon Stewart recently told New York Magazine, “It’s like carnival barkers, and they all sit out there and go, “Come on in here and see a three-legged man!” So you walk in and it’s a guy with a crutch.”

A recent study from The Journal of Experimental Psychology showed that misleading headlines and something called “false balance” – where publishers give equal airtime to sources with very different levels of credibility – can negatively impact the reader’s ability to remember the story, create a cohesive understanding of the story and cognitively process the information. In other words, the publisher’s desperate desire to grab eyeballs gets in the way of their ability to communicate effectively.

Buzzfeed Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith has publicly gone on the record about why he doesn’t use click-bait headlines: “Here is a trade secret I’d decided a few years ago we’d be better off not revealing — clickbait stopped working around 2009.” He references Facebook engineer Khalid El-Arini in the post, saying “readers don’t want to be tricked by headlines; instead, they want to be informed by them.”

Now You Read Me, Now You Don’t

If you ever wanted to test your resolve, try getting to the end of an online article. What content there is is shoehorned into a format littered with ads and clickbait of every description. Many publishers even try to squeeze revenue from the content itself by using Text Enhance, an ad serving platform that hyperlinks keywords in the copy and shows ads if your cursor strays anywhere near these links. Users like me often use their cursor both as a place marker and a quick way to vet sources of embedded links. Text Enhance makes reading in this way an incredibly frustrating experience as it continually pops up poorly targeted ads while you try to tiptoe through the advertising landmines to piece together what the writer was originally trying to say. It turns reading content into a virtual game of “Whac-a-Mole.”

Of course, this is assuming you’ve made it past the page take-over and auto-play video ads that litter the “mind-field” between you and the content you want to access on a site like Forbes or The Atlantic. These interruptions in our intent create a negative mental framework that is compounded by having to weave through increasingly garish ad formats in order to piece together the content we’re trying to access.

A new study from Microsoft and Northwestern University shows that aggressive and annoying advertising may prop up short-term revenues, but at a long-term price that publishers should be thinking twice about paying, ““The practice of running annoying ads can cost more money than it earns, as people are more likely to abandon sites on which they are present. In addition, in the presence of annoying ads, people were less accurate in remembering what they had read. None of these effects on users is desirable from the publisher’s perspective.”

Again, we have this recurring theme about revenue getting in the way of user experience. This is a conflict from which there can be no long-term benefit. When you frustrate users, you slowly kill your revenue source. You engage in a vicious cycle from which there is no escape.

I understand that online publishers are desperate. I get that. They should be. I suspect the ad-supported business platform they’re trying to prop up is hopelessly damaged. Another will emerge to take its place. But the more they frustrate us, the faster that will happen.

 

 

Why Our Brains Love TV

brain-TV-e1318029026863Forrester Research analyst Shar VanBoskirk has pegged 2019 as the year when digital ad spend will surpass TV, topping the $100 billion mark. This is momentous in a number of ways, but not really surprising. If you throw all digital marketing in a single bucket, it was a question of when, not if, it would finally surpass TV. What is more surprising to me is how resilient TV has proven to be as an advertising medium. After all, we’re only a little more than a decade away from the 100th anniversary of broadcast TV (which started in 1928). TV has been the king of the media mountain for a long time.

So, what is it about TV that has so captured us for so long? What is it about the medium that allows our brains to connect to it so easily?

The Two Most Social Senses – Sight and Sound

Even as digital overtakes broadcast and cable television, we’re still mesmerized by the format of TV. Our interaction with the medium has shifted in a few interesting ways, notably time shifting, new platforms to consume it on and binge watching, but our actual interaction with the format itself hasn’t changed very much, save for the continual improvements in fidelity. It’s still sight and sound delivered electronically. And for us, that seems to be a very compelling combination. Despite some thus-far failed attempts to introduce another sense or dimension into the sight/sound duopoly, our brains seem to naturally default back to a relatively stable format of sound and two-dimensional images.

It’s no coincidence that these are the same two senses we rely on most heavily to connect with the outside world. They allow us to scan our environments “at-a-distance,” picking up cues of potential threats or rewards that we can then use our other senses to interact with more intimately. Smell, taste and touch are usually “close-up” senses that are relied on only when sight and sound have given the “all-clear” signal to our brains. For this reason, our brains have some highly developed mechanisms that allow us to parse the world through sight and sound – particularly sight. For example, the fusiform gyrus is a part of our brain that is dedicated to categorizing forms we see and fitting them into categories our brain recognizes. It’s this part of our brain that allows us to recognize faces and fit them into understandable categories such as friends, enemies, family, celebrities, etc.

These are also the two senses we use most often in social settings. If it weren’t for sight and sound, our ability to interact with each other would be severely curtailed. This offers another clue. Television is a good fit with our need to socialize. Sight and sound are the channel inputs to empathy. Our mirror neurons are activated when we see somebody else doing something. That’s why the saying is “Monkey See, Monkey Do,” and not “Monkey Taste, Monkey Do.” These two senses are all we really need to build a fairly rich representation of the world and create emotional connections to it.

We want Immersion, But Not Too Much immersion

So, if the combination of sight and sound seems to be a good match with our mechanisms for understanding the world – why has “more” not proven to be “better?” Why, for instance, has 3D and Interactive TV not caught on to the extent forecast?

I think we’ve developed a comfortable balance with TV. Remember, sight and sound are generally used as “at-a-distance” parsers of our world. Because of the sheer volume of visual and auditory information coming through these channels, the brain has learned to filter input and only alert us when further engagement is required. If our brain had to process all the visual information available to it, it would overload to the point of breakdown. So while we want to be engaged in whatever we’re watching on TV, we aren’t looking to be totally immersed in it. This is why we have the multi-screen/multi-tasking behaviors emerging that are quickly becoming the norm while we watch TV. 3D or Interactive TV both add a dimension of focal attention that isn’t necessary to enjoy a TV show.

The Concept of “Durable” Media

It’s interesting that as technology advances, every so often a media format emerges that is what I would call “durable.” It’s information or entertainment presented in a format that is a good cognitive match for our preferences and abilities. Even if technology is capable of adding “more” to these media, over time it turns out that “more” isn’t perceived as “better.”

Books are perhaps the most durable of media. The basic format of a book has been digitized, but our interaction with a book doesn’t look much different than it did in Guttenberg’s day. It’s still printed words on a page. Television also appears to be a durable medium. The format itself is fairly stable. It’s the revenue models that are built around it that will evolve as time goes on.

Facebook at Work – Stroke of Genius or Act of Desperation?

facebookworkSo, with the launching of Facebook at Work, Facebook wants to become your professional networking platform of choice, does it? Well, speaking as a sample of one, I don’t think so. And it all comes down to one key reason that I’ve talked about in the past, but for some reason, Facebook doesn’t seem to get – social modality.

Social modality is not a tough concept to understand. I’m one person in my office, another on the couch. The things that interest me in the office have little overlap with the things that interest me when I’m “sofa-tose” (nodding into a state of minimal consciousness on overstuffed furniture). But it’s not just about interests. It’s about context. I think differently. I act differently. I react differently. And I want to keep those two states as separate as possible.

Facebook seems to understand the need for separation. They’re building out Facebook at Work as a separate entity. But it’s still Facebook, and when I’ve got my business persona on, I don’t even think of Facebook. Neither, apparently, does anyone else. In 2010, BranchOut tried to build a professional network layer on top of Facebook. Last summer, it changed its business model. The reason? A lack of users. When you think of work, you just don’t think of Facebook. If fact, there’s almost an instinctual revulsion to the idea. Mixing Facebook and work is a cultural taboo.

When we look at the technologies we use to mediate our social activities, different rules apply. It’s not just about features or functionality – it’s about what instinctively feels right. Facebook is trying to create a monolithic platform for social connecting and that doesn’t seem to be where we’re heading. Rather than consolidating our social activity, it’s splintering over different tools and platforms. One reason is functionality. The other is that socially; we’re much too complex to fit into any one particular technological mold. I wrote a few months ago about the maturity continuum of social media. The final stage was to become a platform, which is exactly what Facebook is trying to do. But perhaps becoming a social media platform – at least in the sense that Facebook is attempting – isn’t possible. It could be that our social media personalities are too fractured to fit comfortably in any single destination.

Facebook’s revenue model depends on advertising, which depends on eyeballs. It’s a real estate play. Maybe to be successful, social has to be less about location and more about functionality. In other words, to become a social media platform, you have to be a utility, not a destination. Facebook seems to be trying to do both. According to an article in the Financial Times (registration required) Facebook at work will offer functionality through chat, contact management and document collaboration, but it will do so on a site that “looks very much like Facebook,” including, one assumes, ads served from Facebook. By trying to attract eyeballs to drive revenue, Facebook won’t be able to avoid mixing modality, and therein lays the problem. I suspect Facebook at Work will join an ever-increasing string of Facebook failures.

LinkedIn isn’t perfect, but it has definitely established itself as the B-to-B platform of choice. It fits our sensibilities of what a professional social networking tool should be. And it doesn’t suffer from Facebook’s overly ambitious hubris. It hasn’t launched “LinkedIn at Home” – trying to become the social network platform for our non-work life. It knows what it is. We know what it is. Our social modality isn’t conflicted. Facebook is another matter. It wants to be all things social to all people. I suppose from a revenue point you can’t blame them, but there’s a reason I don’t invite my co-workers to my family reunion – or vice versa.

Someday Facebook will learn that lesson. I suspect it will probably be the hard way.

#AlexfromTarget – An Unexpected Consequence of Technology

1414997478566_wps_10_Original_Tweet_of_Alex_frYes, I’m belatedly jumping on the #AlexfromTarget bandwagon, but it’s in service of a greater truth that I’m trying to illustrate. Last column, I spoke about the Unintended Consequences of Technology. I think this qualifies. And furthermore, this brings us full circle to Kaila Colbin’s original point, which started this whole prolonged discussion.

It is up to us to decide what is important, to create meaning and purpose. And, personally, I think we could do a better job than we’re doing now.

So, why did the entire world go ga-ga over a grocery bagger from Texas? What could possibly be important about this?

Well – nothing – and that’s the point. Thinking about important things is hard work. Damned hard work – if it’s really important. Important things are complex. They make our brains hurt. It’s difficult to pin them down long enough to plant some hooks of understanding in them. They’re like eating broccoli, or doing push ups. They may be good for us, but that doesn’t make them any more fun.

Remember the Yir Yoront from my last column – the tribal society that was thrown into a tail spin by the introduction of steel axes? The intended consequence of that introduction was to make the Yir Yoront more productive. The axes did make the tribe more productive, in that they were able to do the essential tasks more quickly, but the result was that the Yir Yoront spent more time sleeping.

Here’s the thing about technology. It allows us to be more human – and by that I mean the mixed bag of good and bad that defines humanity. It extends our natural instincts. It’s natural to sleep if you don’t have to worry about survival. And it’s also natural for young girls to gossip about adorable young boys. These are hard-wired traits. Deep philosophical thought is not a hard-wired trait. Humans can do it, but it takes conscious effort

Here’s where the normal distribution curve comes in. Any genetically determined trait will have a normal distribution over the population. How we apply new technologies will be no different. The vast majority of the population will cluster around the mean. But here’s the other thing – that “mean” is a moving target. As our brains “re-wire” and adapt to new technologies, the mean that defines typical behavior will move over time. We adapt strategies to incorporate our new technology-aided abilities. This creates a new societal standard and it is also human to follow the unwritten rules of society. This creates a cause and effect cycle. Technologies enable new behaviors that are built on top of the foundations of human instinct – society determines whether these new behaviors are acceptable – and if they are acceptable, they become the new “mean” of our behavioral bell curve. We bounce new behaviors off the backboard of society. So, much as we may scoff at the fan-girls that gave “Alex” insta-fame – ultimately it’s not the girl’s fault, or technology’s. The blame lies with us. It also lies with Ellen DeGeneres, the New York Times, and the other barometers of societal acceptance that offered endorsement of the phenomenon.

It’s human to be distracted by the titillating and trivial. It’s also human to gossip about it. There’s nothing new here. It’s just that these behaviors used to remain trapped within the limited confines of our own social networks. Now, however, they’re amplified through technology. It’s difficult to determine what the long-term consequences of this might be. Is Nicholas Carr right? Is technology leading us down the garden path to imbecility, forever distracted by bright, shiny objects? Or is our finest moment yet to come?

The Unintended Consequences of Technology

Who_caresIn last Friday’s Online Spin Column, Kaila Colbin asks a common question when it comes to the noise surrounding the latest digital technologies: Who Cares? Colbin rightly points out that we tend to ascribe unearned importance to whatever digital technology we seemed to be focused on at the given time. This is called, aptly enough, the focusing illusion and in the words of Daniel Kahneman, who coined the term, “Nothing in life is as important as you think it is, while you are thinking about it.”

But there’s another side to this. How important are the things we aren’t thinking about? For example, because it’s difficult to wrap our minds around big picture consequences in the future, we tend not to think as much as we should about them. In the case of digital technology shifts such as the ones Kaila mentioned, what we should care about is the overall shift caused by the cumulative impact of these technologies, not the individual components that make up the wave.

When we introduce a new technology, we usually have some idea of the impact they will have. These are the intended consequences. And we focus on these, which makes them more important in our minds. But some things will catch us totally by surprise. These are called unintended consequences. We won’t know them until the happen, but when they do, we will very much care about them. To illustrate that point, I’d like to tell the story about the introduction of one technology that dramatically changed one particular society.

yiryorontThe Yir Yoront were a nomadic tribe in Australia that somehow managed to avoid significant contact with the western world until well into the 20th century. In Yir Yoront society, one of the most valuable things you could possess was a stone axe. The making of these axes took time and skill and was typically done by elder males. In return, these “axe-makers” were conferred special status in aboriginal society. Only a man could own an axe and if a woman or child needed one, they had to borrow it. A complex social network evolved around the ownership of axes.

In 1915 the Anglican Church established a mission in Yir Yoront territory. The missionaries brought with them a large supply of steel hatchets. They distributed these freely to any Yir Yoront that asked for them. The intended consequence was to make life easier for the tribe and trigger an improvement in living conditions.

As anthropologist Lauriston Sharp chronicled, steel axes spread rapidly through the Yir Yoront. But they didn’t spread evenly. Elder males held on to their stone axes, both as a symbol of their status and because of their distrust of the missionaries. It was the younger men, women and children that previously had to borrow stone axes who eagerly adopted the new steel axes. The steel axes were more efficient, and so jobs were done in much less time. But, to the missionary’s horror, the Yir Yoront spent most of their extra leisure time sleeping.

Sleeping, however, was the least of the unintended consequences. Social structures, which had evolved over thousands of years, were dismantled overnight. Elders were forced to borrow steel axes from what would have been their social inferiors. People no longer attended important intertribal gatherings, which were once the exchange venues for stone axes. Traditional trading channels and relationships disappeared. Men began prostituting their daughters and wives in exchange for someone else’s steel ax. The very fabric of Yir Yoront society began unraveling as a consequence of the introduction of steel axes by the Anglican missionaries.

Now, one may argue that there were aspects of this culture that were overdue for change. A traditional Yir Yoront society was undeniably chauvinistic. But the point of this story is not to pass judgment. My only purpose here is to show how new technologies can bring massive and unanticipated disruption to a society.

Everett Rogers used the Yir Yoront example in his seminal book Diffusion of Innovations. In it, he said that introductions of new technologies typically have three components: Form, Function and Meaning. The first two of these tend to be understood and intended during the introduction. Both the Yir Yoront and the Anglican missionaries understand the form and function of the steel ax. But neither understood the meaning, because meaning was determined over time through the absorption of the technology into the receiving culture. This is where unintended consequences come from.

When it comes to digital technologies, we usually talk about form and function. We focus on what a technology is and what it will do. We seldom talk about what the meaning of a new technology might be. This is because form and function can be intentionally designed and defined. Meaning has to evolve. You can’t see it until it happens.

So, to return to Kaila’s question. Who cares? Specifically, who cares about the meaning of the new technologies we’re all voraciously adopting? If the story of the Yir Yoront is any lesson, we all should.

The Virtuous Cycle and the End of Arm’s Length Marketing

brandstewardshipLast week I wrote what should have been an open and shut column – looking at why SEO never really lived up to the potential of the business opportunity. Then my friend Scott Brinker had to respond with this comment:

“Seems like Google has long been focused on making SEO a “result” of companies doing good things, rather than a search-specific optimization “cause” to generate good rankings. They seem to have gotten what they wanted. Now as Google starts to do that with paid search, the world gets interesting for those agencies too..”

Steven Aresenault jumped on the bandwagon with this:

“Companies are going to wake up to the reality that part of their marketing is really about creating content. Content is everywhere and everything. Reality is I believe that it is a new way of thinking.”

As they both point out, SEO should be a natural result of a company doing good things, not the outcome of artificial manipulations practiced by a third party. It has to be baked into and permeate through the operating DNA of a company. But, as I started this column, I realized that this doesn’t stop at SEO. This is just the tip of a much bigger iceberg. Marketing, at least the way it’s been done up to now, is fundamentally broken. And it’s because many companies still rely on what I would call “Arm’s Length Marketing.”

Brand Stewardship = B.S.

Here is a quote lifted directly from the Ogilvy Mather website:

We believe our role as 360 Degree Brand Stewards is this: Creating attention-getting messages that make a promise consistent and true to the brand’s image and identity. And guiding actions, both big and small, that deliver on that brand promise. To every audience that brand has. At every brand intersection point. At all times.

Now, Ogilvy is very good at crafting messages and this one is no exception. Who could possibly argue with their view of brand stewardship? The problem comes when you look at what “stewardship” means. Here’s the Merriam Webster definition:

the conducting, supervising, or managing of something; especially :  the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care

The last five words are the key – “something entrusted to one’s care”. This implies that the agency has functional control of the brand, and with due apologies to David Ogilvy and his cultural legacy, that is simply bullshit.

Brands = Experience

Hmmm - coincidence?

Hmmm – coincidence?

Maybe Arm’s Length Brand Stewardship was possible in the era of David Ogilvy, Don Draper and Darrin Stephens (now, there’s a pop culture trifecta for you) – where brand messaging defined the brand, but that era is long gone. Brands used to be crafted from exposure, but now they’re created through experience, amplified through the resonant network of the online community. And an arm’s length third party cannot, nor should they, control that experience. It has to live at the heart of the company. For decades, companies abdicated the responsibility of brand stewardship to the communication experts – or, to do a little word crafting – they “entrusted (it) to (their) care.” That has to change. Marketing has to come back home.

The Virtuous Marketing Cycle

Scott talked about the SEO rewards that come from doing good things. Steven talked about authentic content creation being one of those good things. But this is a much bigger deal. This is about forcefully moving marketing’s place in the strategic chain. Currently, the order is this: Management > Strategy > Marketing > Revenue. Marketing’s current job is to execute on strategy, which comes from management. And, in that scenario, it’s plausible to execute at arm’s length. Also, things like SEO and content management fall well down the chain, typically beneath the threshold of senior management awareness. By the way, usability and other user-centric practices typically suffer the same fate.

But what if we moved our thinking from a chain to a cycle: Marketing > Management > Strategy > Marketing > Revenue > Marketing (and repeat)? Let me explain. To begin with, Marketing is perfectly situated to become the “sensemaking” interface with the market. This goes beyond market research, which very seldom truly informs strategy. Market research in its current form is typically intended to optimize the marketing program.

I’m talking about a much bigger role – Marketing would define the “outside in” view of the company which would form the context within which strategy would be determined by Management. Sensemaking as it applies to corporate strategy is a huge topic, but for brevity’s sake, let’s suppose that Marketing fills the role of the corporation’s five senses, defining what reality looks (and smells and sounds and tastes and feels) like . Then, when strategy is defined within that context, Marketing is well positioned to execute on it. Finally, execution is not the end – it is the beginning of another cycle. Sense making is an iterative process. Marketing then redefines what reality looks like and the cycle starts over again.

Bringing stewardship of marketing back to the very heart of the organization fundamentally changes things like arm’s length agency partnerships. It creates a virtuous cycle that runs through length and breadth of a company’s activities. Things like SEO, content creation and usability naturally fall into place.

Why SEO Never Lived Up to Its Potential

IAB Canada President Chris Williams asked me a great question last week.

seo9We had just finished presenting the results of the new eye tracking study I told you about in the last three columns. I had mentioned that about 84% of all the clicks on the page in the study were on some type of non-paid result. I had also polled the audience of some 400 plus Internet marketers about how many were doing some type of organic optimization. A smattering of hands (which, in case you’re wondering, is somewhere south of a dozen, or about 3% of the audience) went up. Williams picked up on the disconnect right away. “We have a multi-billion dollar interactive advertising industry here in Canada, and you’re telling me that (on search at least) that only represents about 16% of the potential traffic? Why isn’t SEO a massive industry?”

Like I said – great question. I wish I had responded with a great answer. But the best I could do fell well short of the mark: “Uhh..well…(pick up slight whining tone at this point)…SEO is just really, really hard!”

Okay, maybe I was slightly more eloquent than that – but the substance of my reply was essentially that flimsy. SEO is a backbreaking way to earn a living, whether you’re a lone consultant, an agency or an in-house marketer.

Coincidentally, I was also in an inaugural call last week with a dear friend of mine who asked me to serve on the advisory board of his successful digital agency. I asked if they offered SEO services. I got the same answer from him – SEO was just too hard to make it profitable. They dropped it a few years ago from their services portfolio.

It Was a Case of Showing Search the Money

The potential value of SEO hasn’t changed in the almost 20 years since I started in this biz. In fact, it’s probably greater than ever. But SEO never seems to gain traction. The reason becomes clear when you start following the money. Goto.com (which became Overture, which was swallowed by Yahoo) sealed SEO’s fate when it started auctioning off search ads in 1998.  Google eventually followed suit in 2000 and the rest, along with SEO, was history. Even devout SEOers (myself included) eventually followed the money trail to the paid side of the house. The reasons why were abundantly and painfully clear when you consider this one particular example. We had the SEO contract with one fortune 500 brand that brought in about $300K annually. At the time, it would have been our biggest SEO contract, but it also was resource intensive. We had an entire team working on it. We did well, securing a number of first page results for some very high traffic terms. Based on what analytics we had it appeared that SEO was driving about 90% of the traffic and was converting substantially better than any other traffic source, including paid search. This translated into hundreds of millions of dollars in business yearly. But we could never seem to grow our contract beyond that $300K ceiling.

Paid search was another story. From fairly humble beginnings, that same brand became one of Google’s top advertisers, spending over $30 million per year. The management of that contract became a multimillion-dollar account. Unfortunately, it wasn’t our account. It belonged to another agency – a much smarter and more profitable agency.

Why We Got Pigeon Holed with SEO

If, as a service provider, you live and die by SEO, it’s probable that you’ll end up dying by SEO. Here’s why. To gain any traction you need to have influence over almost every aspect of the business. SEO has to become systemic. It has to be baked into the way an organization does business. It can’t be done as window dressing.

Most organizations don’t get that. They get tantalized by initial easy wins – things like cleaning up code, improving crawlability and doing some basic content optimization. Organic traffic skyrockets and everyone cheers. Life is good. But then it gets hard. The next step means rolling up your sleeves and diving deep into the guts of the organization. And if that organization isn’t ready to open the kimono to the SEO consultant at all levels, you hit a brick wall. This is typically where the organization falls prey to more unscrupulous SEO promises and practices from other vendors, which invariably get slammed by a future algo-update. And that brings us to the last challenge for SEO.

Flip Your SEO Coin

Even the best SEOers can get blindsided by Google. A tweak in an algorithm or a shift in ranking factors can drop you like a rock from the first page. And, if the recent study showed anything, it was that you can’t afford to drop from the first page. Traffic can go from a roar to a whisper overnight. That’s tough for the marketing department of an organization to swallow. People in the C-Suite that sign off on a sizable SEO contract have a tough time understanding why their investment suddenly got flushed down Google’s drain, perhaps never to resurface. They love control, and SEO offers anything but. As important as SEO is, it’s not predictable. You can’t bank on it.

So Chris…thanks for the question. Like I said, it was a really good one. And I hope this is a little better answer than the one I came up with on the spot.

Evolved Search Behaviors: Take Aways for Marketers

In the last two columns, I first looked at the origins of the original Golden Triangle, and then looked at how search behaviors have evolved in the last 9 years, according to a new eye tracking study from Mediative. In today’s column, I’ll try to pick out a few “so whats” for search marketers.

It’s not about Location, It’s About Intent

In 2005, search marketing as all about location. It was about grabbing a part of the Golden Triangle, and the higher, the better. The delta between scanning and clicks from the first organic result to the second was dramatic – by a factor of 2 to 1! Similar differences were seen in the top paid results. It’s as if, given the number of options available on the page (usually between 12 and 18, depending on the number of ads showing) searchers used position as a quick and dirty way to filter results, reasoning that the higher the result, the better match it would be to their intent.

In 2014, however, it’s a very different story. Because the first scan is now to find the most appropriate chunk, the importance of being high on the page is significantly lessened. Also, once the second step of scanning has begun, within a results chunk, there seems to be more vertical scanning within the chunk and less lateral scanning. Mediative found that in some instances, it was the third or fourth listing in a chunk that attracted the most attention, depending on content, format and user intent. For example, in the heat map shown below, the third organic result actually got as many clicks as the first, capturing 26% of all the clicks on the page and 15% of the time spent on page. The reason could be because it was the only listing that had the Google Ratings Rich Snippet because of the proper use of structured data mark up. In this case, the information scent that promised user reviews was a strong match with user intent, but you would only know this if you knew what that intent was.

Google-Ford-Fiesta

This change in user search scanning strategies makes it more important than ever to understand the most common user intents that would make them turn to a search engine. What will be the decision steps they go through and at which of those steps might they turn to a search engine? Would it be to discover a solution to an identified need, to find out more about a known solution, to help build a consideration set for direct comparisons, to look for one specific piece of information (ie a price) or to navigate to one particular destination, perhaps to order online? If you know why your prospects might use search, you’ll have a much better idea of what you need to do with your content to ensure you’re in the right place at the right time with the right content.  Nothing shows this clearer than the following comparison of heat maps. The one on the left was the heat map produced when searchers were given a scenario that required them to gather information. The one on the right resulted from a scenario where searchers had to find a site to navigate to. You can see the dramatic difference in scanning behaviors.

Intent-compared-2

If search used to be about location, location, location, it’s now about intent, intent, intent.

Organic Optimization Matters More than Ever!

Search marketers have been saying that organic optimization has been dying for at least two decades now, ever since I got into this industry. Guess what? Not only is organic optimization not dead, it’s now more important than ever! In Enquiro’s original 2005 study, the top two sponsored ads captured 14.1% of all clicks. In Mediative’s 2014 follow up, the number really didn’t change that much, edging up to 14.5% What did change was the relevance of the rest of the listings on the page. In 2005, all the organic results combined captured 56.7% of the clicks. That left about 29% of the users either going to the second page of results, launching a new search or clicking on one of the side sponsored ads (this only accounted for small fraction of the clicks). In 2014, the organic results, including all the different category “chunks,” captured 74.6% of the remaining clicks. This leaves only 11% either clicking on the side ads (again, a tiny percentage) or either going to the second page or launching a new search. That means that Google has upped their first page success rate to an impressive 90%.

First of all, that means you really need to break onto the first page of results to gain any visibility at all. If you can’t do it organically, make sure you pay for presence. But secondly, it means that of all the clicks on the page, some type of organic result is capturing 84% of them. The trick is to know which type of organic result will capture the click – and to do that you need to know the user’s intent (see above). But you also need to optimize across your entire content portfolio. With my own blog, two of the biggest traffic referrers happen to be image searches.

Left Gets to Lead

The Left side of the results page has always been important but the evolution of scanning behaviors now makes it vital. The heat map below shows just how important it is to seed the left hand of results with information scent.

Googlelefthand

Last week, I talked about how the categorization of results had caused us to adopt a two stage scanning strategy, the first to determine which “chunks” of result categories are the best match to intent, and the second to evaluated the listings in the most relevant chunks. The vertical scan down the left hand of the page is where we decide which “chunks” of results are the most promising. And, in the second scan, because of the improved relevancy, we often make the decision to click without a lot of horizontal scanning to qualify our choice. Remember, we’re only spending a little over a second scanning the result before we click. This is just enough to pick up the barest whiffs of information scent, and almost all of the scent comes from the left side of the listing. Look at the three choices above that captured the majority of scanning and clicks. The search was for “home decor store toronto.” The first popular result was a local result for the well known brand Crate and Barrel. This reinforces how important brands can be if they show up on the left side of the result set. The second popular result was a website listing for another well known brand – The Pottery Barn. The third was a link to Yelp – a directory site that offered a choice of options. In all cases, the scent found in the far left of the result was enough to capture a click. There was almost no lateral scanning to the right. When crafting titles, snippets and metadata, make sure you stack information scent to the left.

In the end, there are no magic bullets from this latest glimpse into search behaviors. It still comes down to the five foundational planks that have always underpinned good search marketing:

  1. Understand your user’s intent
  2. Provide a rich portfolio of content and functionality aligned with those intents
  3. Ensure your content appears at or near the top of search results, either through organic optimization or well run search campaigns
  4. Provide relevant information scent to capture clicks
  5. Make sure you deliver on what you promise post-click

Sure, the game is a little more complex than it was 9 years ago, but the rules haven’t changed.

Strategic Planning as though the Future Matters – Strategy and Leadership

Note from Gord

Up to now, Out Of My Gord has never had guest posts. It’s not really an editorial policy or anything like that. It’s just that the right person never asked. Then I chatted with Doug Randall of Monitor 360. I’m currently working on a new book and it deals with sense making as it applies to corporate strategy. I had written a column called the Pros and Cons of a Fuel Efficient Brain and Daniel Beckerman from Monitor 360 reached out to see if I’d like to chat with Doug. We had a fascinating discussion which resulted in a follow up post. I particularly liked how Monitor 360 uses a narrative framework to help humans deal with data. Last month, Monitor 360 CMO Kevin Rockmael asked if I’d be interested in guest posts. I said probably. So, here is the first guest post. It was previously published by Monitor 360 but I think it would be of interest to my audience. In particular, it covers use of scenarios to avoid market surprises that could have been anticipated (key in sense making). Monitor 360 is currently working on some new posts as well.

G

By Doug Randall

chesspiecesWhy do organizations get blindsided by market transformations that could have been anticipated? It may not be because their planning methods are flawed, but rather that they undertake strategic planning processes like scenario development without seeing them as a unique opportunity for learning about and exploring the future.

To help planners avoid strategic surprise, Monitor 360 has created a five-step strategic planning process that has been tested in interactions with leaders in the military, intelligence community, and corporations. This paper guides you through a systematic process for incorporating plausible but challenging future scenarios into your organization’s learning processes, to help mitigate risk and decrease the likelihood of being unprepared for discontinuities.

The PDF is available for download.

Why do organizations get blindsided by market transformations that could have been anticipated? After all, scenario planning has been a widely used strategic planning tool for decades and most managers are familiar with the process of considering how they would operate in alternative futures. The reason most organizations get surprised by game-changing events, in my experience, is not that their planning methods are bad. The problem is that they undertake strategic planning processes like scenario development without seeing them as a unique opportunity for learning about and exploring the future. In some cases this is because management lacks sufficient appreciation for the uncertainty and ambiguity their organizations face. More often, however, management is fully aware of the uncertainty of their situation but is seemingly powerless to prepare to adapt to new business realities, especially unpleasant ones.

To help planners avoid strategic surprise, Monitor 360 has created a five-step strategic planning process that has been tested in interactions with leaders in the military, intelligence community, and corporations. By systematically incorporating plausible but challenging future scenarios into their learning processes, decision makers can both mitigate risk and decrease the likelihood of not being prepared for discontinuities. This approach overcomes the paralysis that sometimes happens when people see all the uncertainty their organization faces, as well as the denial that happens when they don’t.

Multiple futures

When thinking about the future, many strategic planners make the mistake of asking, “What will the future be?” Because the future is the net result of so many complex and interdependent issues the question is daunting, and perhaps unanswerable.

A more realistic question is, “What are the possible challenging futures?” Exploring multiple possible ways the future could unfold in ways that would require the organization to radically adapt enables leaders to better prepare for a wide range of contingencies, and to manage the consequences more effectively when surprises do occur.

Scenario analysis can provide planners with a systematic way of imaging the future and identifying winning long-term strategies that respond to the many ways the future could play out. It helps individuals and their organizations identify and challenge their entrenched mental models and assumptions about what the future might hold, while helping bound the uncertainties they face.

Instead of attempting to predict what’s going to happen, the scenario methodology offers a way to see the forces as they are taking shape and not be blindsided when they lead to major changes. Anticipating the future gives decision-makers the ability to look in the right place for game-changing events, to rehearse the appropriate responses and to systematically tack indicators of change.

Five Mindsets for Managing Uncertainty

Scenario thinking is the foundation of our five-step toolkit because of the unique ways it allows leaders to explore and exploit the unknown, and because it offers managers a methodology to consider alternatives in the face of uncertainty. To make scenario planning more effective, we’ve identified five discrete steps in the process, each of which should be undertaken with a distinct mindset. It is important to take these steps one at a time and in order, rather than skipping right away to decision-making.

Create Scenarios — Unleash your Imagination

Scenarios are plausible narratives about futures that are distinctly different from the present. If they are well prepared, they allow for a thorough exploration of future risks and opportunities. Scenario thinkers begin at the same place as traditional risk managers, skillfully making an inventory of what is known about the future. After exploring issues such as demographics as well as aspects of industry structure and customer behavior, scenario thinkers turn to the unknown, the unknowable, and the perceptions that should be challenged. Following a rigorous analytical process aimed at articulating the range of uncertainties an organization could face and all of the relevant outcomes, scenario thinkers design a number of cogent narratives about relevant futures.

Scenarios are written as plausible stories — not probable ones. Traditional risk management is based on probabilities, actuary tables, and other known and measurable quantities. But scenarios are intended to provoke the imagination and provide a more comprehensive view of risk, so that the results can shed light on critical strategic decisions.

It is important to note that scenario developers create multiple futures, rather than just one. This allows for a more complete exploration of the future, thus avoiding getting wedded to specific set of assumptions about how uncertainties will unfold. The process of developing multiple scenarios helps to increase the possibility that leaders will not be surprised, because it allows them to rehearse multiple unique futures. Importantly, it also grounds decision-makers in the reality that, in most circumstances, they cannot accurately predict the future. Rathe than falsely assuming one outcome will happen, leaders learn that they must make decisions in light of the true uncertainty they face.

As an example of this process, the U.S. Navy developed a set of scenarios that would help guide the development of the first unified strategy of all the country’s maritime forces in the “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower” released October 2007. The first step was to develop four working scenarios. These were discussed and refined in a series of eight working sessions around the country with people from the business, government, and academic sectors who could provide valuable insight about issues the Navy needed to address in the future. The participation of these experts, and their feedback, helped to test the validity of scenarios, which were then refined for publication and dissemination.

The scenarios had a significant impact on the future strategy of the Navy. For example, the scenarios helped to provide a new mission for the Navy in its response to humanitarian crises. the report concluded: “Building on relationships forged in times of calm, we will continue to mitigate human suffering as the vanguard of interagency and multinational efforts, both in a deliberate, proactive fashion and in response to crises. Human suffering moves us to act, and the expeditionary character of maritime forces uniquely positions them to provide assistance.”

Determine Required Capabilities for each Scenario — Give your Creativity Free Rein

The second step of the process is to identify what it takes to be successful in each of the futures identified. After the scenario process has imagined distinctly different future worlds that the organization’s leaders have acknowledge are plausible, relevant, and important, what would a high-performing organization look like in each of these worlds? That is, if an organization were dealt the card of one scenario, what would it need to do in order to be successful?

To answer this question, planners need to make a list of key success factors and capabilities. Key capabilities for militaries or intelligence agencies might be the ability to project force rapidly abroad or the ability to collect and process open-source information. Capabilities often start with “the ability to….” For companies these might be the ability to build brands that address customer needs and inspire loyalty as well as the ability to launch products quickly.

As a case in point, a major software company needed to determine where to invest its limited resources to succeed in a market roiled by new competitors. In one scenario, the company needed good relationships with its value-added resellers and excellent customer service. In another scenario, it needed an entirely different set of capabilities, including low cost, operating system integration.

It’s important to address the capabilities question as if it were a set of independent problems: what it would take to be a winner in a given scenario? Doing so encourages bold, creative thinking, and avoids the trap of limiting the alternatives to those that are doable with current capabilities and resources. By keeping this step separate from the next one, assessing current capabilities, planners are not hobbled by only thinking about what they are good at today or nor do they have struggle with imagining themselves in four different worlds at the same time.

It is often a wrenching experience for leaders to simply look for the absolutely best strategic posture for their organization in each scenario. This is one measure of how hard it is for them to imagine doing business in any future that has totally different success factors from the current environment.

Assess Current Capabilities — Be Painfully Realistic

Separate from the critical examination of the capabilities needed for success in each scenario, planners must ask: What are we good at right now? The answers could be human capital, relationship, or operational efficiency. These capabilities are generally described as competitive assets that cannot be bought and sold on the free market. Organizations can’t just say, “We’ll invest $100 million next month, and then we’ll have that ability” or “We want to do that.” They have to build the capability over time.

Often outside perspective — for example, based on detailed discussions with customers — can be helpful in getting in unbiased evaluation of what capabilities an organization excels in.

Identify Gaps — Provide Honest Analysis

Next organization should compare its own capabilities with the capabilities needed to succeed in the scenarios. Such capability maps will not only highlight what capabilities it needs to develop — the capability gaps — but also what capabilities it has already invested in that may become redundant.

Make Choices — Consider your Options

Once organizations have analyzed the gap between their strengths and the capabilities needed in each scenario, they face some big decisions. There could be capabilities that they need in all the scenarios imagined but that they don’t currently have. As a first step, an organization might safely develop these. We call those “no-regrets moves.”

Others move are what we call “big bets.”  These are capabilities needed in a particular scenario or a small number of scenarios, but not in others. Organizations make bets consciously after systematically thinking through the types of capabilities, their relationship to the environment around them, or the futures that they feel are likely to occur. They can adjust their decision when more data is collected or events unfold in the world. This process is based on the theory of real options, which suggests an organization can gain an advantage by making many small bets, and as information accumulates, start to increase or decrease those bets accordingly.

The crucial questions for organizations to ask when making choices are: What would be the risk if a scenario happened and we didn’t have this capability? And what would be the risk if a scenario didn’t happen and we did have it?

What’s Clouding the Future?

It’s painfully difficult for individual leaders to keep their minds open to multiple futures and to follow a systematic process like the one described above. IBM”s famous story illustrates this all-to-common tendency.

In 1980, the personal computer represented a tiny niche market. When IBM was considering developing a computer for the masses it convened a working group to forecast its potential market. The team projected that the market for PCs would total a mere 241,683 units over the next five years, and that demand would peak after two years and then trend downward. They believed that since existing computers had such a small amount of processing power, people would not want to purchase a second one.

As a result, IBM determined that there was no potential in the marketplace and effectively killed its effort to dominate the personal computer market, ceding the operating system to Microsoft and the processor to Intel. IBM lost out on a $240 billion market, one in which nearly every household in the developed world would eventually want one or more of the machines and then would want to upgrade them every few years.

But what if someone in the room had asked, “What if people want a PC on every desktop?” What if individuals start carrying PC’s in their pockets? What if PCs develop a communications capability?What if they are widely used to play games? Maybe we should think of a different scenario where the market would be more like 20 million units?” These would have been completely off-the-wall, outrageous ideas at the time, but if just one person in the room had explored such different lines of thought, the futures of Microsoft, Intel and IBM might have evolved differently.

The Benefits of a Systematic, Disciplined Approach

Anticipating the future isn’t just about avoiding strategic surprise or minimizing the downside risk. There’s also a huge upside: You are creating the future that you want and making sense of how the world may play out. Understanding your choices can be an empowering process.

When planners follow a process that systematically cuts through the barriers to effective group learning and decision-making, and combine that process with principles that give discipline and robustness to the entire endeavor, the future, and our place in it, comes into a much sharper focus.