Author Archives: ghotchkiss

Berrypicking Your Way through the Web

First published July 3, 2008 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

In the last three columns, I explored the fundamentals of humans seeking information. To refresh your memory, the purpose of this series is to explore the importance of branding on the search page. Taking several steps back to begin my run at this topic (and risking a series that is “long and extremely wind baggy,” in the words of one reader), we’re now starting to get at some of the important concepts to understand how we interact with a search results page.

Bates and Berrypicking

In 1989, Marcia Bates took a fresh look   at the classic model of information retrieval that had dominated for the previous 25 years. The model was a fairly straight equation, with on one side a collection of documents and how the contents of those documents were represented, and the seeker’s information need and the query they constructed to express that need on the other side. In the middle was the desired outcome, the match of query and document representation. Bates found this admirably simple equation didn’t hold up too well in real-world search situations, especially given the advances in information technology.

The problem with the classic model was that it assumed that the successful search for information was a relatively static event, where one search and retrieval strategy took you eventually to the desired information. Even if you took into account feedback and iterative query refinement, it still looked at the process as a continual and linear one, with incremental progress towards a constant goal. In looking at actual behavior, Bates found that the process was more complex. As we pursued the information we thought we wanted, she found the path was less a straight line and more a looping and meandering path. In fact, it reminded her of picking huckleberries, hence the title of her theory, berrypicking.

Meandering through the Web

Bates found that as we start down the path to the information we seek, we pick up bits of information a little at a time, like picking berries. What’s more, as we pick the berries, we may head off in different directions depending on the information we gather. We follow the berries to more promising clusters of berries, or “patches.” We don’t just refine our queries, we change search and retrieval strategies, the places where we think we’ll find information (our “patches”) and, in the more extreme cases, our ultimate destination. Search is an evolving behavior, not a linear one.

Bates looked at 6 different strategies that academics use to search for information: footnote chasing (backwards chaining from articles of reference, tracking back footnotes); citation searching (forward chaining, using a citation index to jump forward); journal run (using authoritative journals on a subject and going through the entire run); area scanning (using the physical location of a subject in a library on the assumption that relevant materials will be in the same location); abstracting and indexing searches (using organized bibliographies and indexes, usually arranged by subject area); and author searching. At the time of her paper (1989), Web search was still unknown. The first search engine (Archie) would be created in 1990 at McGill University. But as you look at the six methods outlined, it’s clear that Web search lets you do any and all of them.

The Web: The Ultimate Berry Patch

Bates theorized that berrypicking would play out in different environments and you would change strategies as you went from environment to environment. The timeline could be days, weeks or even months. But with the Web and search, you could go from strategy to strategy in seconds, berrypicking your way through the Web. What’s more, you could be diverted from your original path through a serendipitous display of information that catches your attention. For example, you could be footnote chasing (i.e., the source link for a snippet of a review on one page) which leads you to launch a search for other reviews. There you see results for a magazine dedicated to the topic (an example of journal run), a link for other consumer reviews (citation searching) and a book title written by an authority on the subject (author searching). You’ve just used all six of the strategies outlined by Bates in one session, as you used abstracting and indexing (this is ultimately what a search engine is) and area scanning (in this case the physical collocation is defined by the search page real estate).

When it comes to the impact of branding on search, it’s important to understand Bate’s berrypicking model. Any search result could represent a “berry” that could lead us to an entirely new patch. Our search path could evolve in a totally new direction based on what we pick from a page. We can be introduced to brands or have them reinforced as we berrypick our way along.

In the next column, we’ll continue to redefine information retrieval by looking at the Information Foraging theory.

The Quest for Information

First published June 26, 2008 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

The third in my series in looking at how we search and how it might impact our brand relationships. Today, I look at how the emergence of Web search marks a dramatic leap forward in our quest for information.

The Great Library of Alexandria, built in 300 BC, was designed to hold all the knowledge of man. The dream of Ptolemy II was to assemble all the scrolls of the world in one place. Last week we explored why we sought knowledge. The Ptolemaic library was the first attempt to create one single repository for that information. Unfortunately, the media for recording knowledge was papyrus, which proved to be unpredictably flammable. The library burned not once but several times.

One of the challenges of seeking information is that it tends to be spread out and difficult to access. As we saw last week, when we seek information, we tend to either know what it is and where to get it, know what it is but not where it is, or, most challengingly, we don’t even know what it is we’re looking for.

Organizing the World’s Information

Google’s quest, picking up where Ptolemy left off, was to organize the world’s information. This is the big hairy audacious goal of all big hairy audacious goals. It’s never been accomplished before in the history of man. But Google is betting that it can be done thanks to the migration of information to a digital format.

In seeking information, humans will take the path of least resistance. This is not to say humans are inherently lazy. Like many things that come from evolutionary psychology, we have a tendency to reduce human behaviors to overly simplified maxims — and the inherent laziness of humans is one such oversimplification. It is true, however, than humans are inherently thrifty with our energy expenditures. Harvard professors Paul R. Lawrence and Nitin Nohria, in their book “Driven: How Human Nature Shapes our Choices,” theorize that humans are driven by four basic drives: The drive to acquire, the drive to bond, the drive to learn and the drive to defend. As we pursue these drives, we constantly balance effort vs. rewards. We will pursue the things important to us, but we will generally find the easiest means to our ends. This is particularly true of intellectual effort, where many cognitive short cuts are prewired and are triggered without our conscious awareness.

The Irresistible Lure of Web Search

This is why search has become such a  fundamental human activity. The aggregation of information that sits just a few keystrokes away is a tremendously engaging prospect for us energy-efficient humans. We will take the easiest path to retrieve the information and do it in a brutally efficient way. Search interfaces have to be intuitive and sparse. The more complicated the task, the less attractive it is to us. This is why search tools that ask us to do any more than type in the bare minimum of keywords will ultimately fail if there’s an easier choice. And this is why Google has become a habit for us.

But what about intent? Different types of searches may require different interfaces and treatment of results. Again, we make expenditure/reward calculations at an instinctive level based on our experience and knowledge. We decide which actions will be most likely to yield the information we seek. As you explore human nature, one of the most striking discoveries is just how sophisticated our subconscious energy conservation mechanisms are. Habits, emotions, instincts and other non-rational drivers guide us to make split-second decisions that should provide the best results with the least effort, and they are usually remarkably accurate. They have been field-tested and encoded into our genes by natural selection for generation after generation.

Picking the Right Path to Information

There’s another factor at play here, our level of confidence that past behaviors will continue to yield satisfactory results in the future. And this is part of a largely subconscious decision process when we chose the path to the information we seek.

Remember, when we seek information, we fit into one of three categories: we know what we’re looking for and where to find it, we know what we’re looking for but don’t know where to find it, or we don’t know what we’re looking for or where to find it.

Search engines fit the first two categories quite nicely. The first category leads to the huge volume of navigational search we see online, where we’re looking at search to connect us to the right page on the right site. And the second category gives us the more typical search behavior, where we tell the engine what we’re looking for and it provides it suggestions of the best place to find it.

It’s the third category where search engines struggle. When we don’t know what we’re looking for or where to find it, it’s difficult to find the words for our query. It’s in this category where search engines are trying to break new ground, by becoming discovery engines.

So, how has evolution equipped us to look for information? In the next column, I’ll look at information foraging, information scent and berry picking.

Oops – I Did It Again. Sorry Andrew.

One year ago, I may have mentioned that my fellow countrymen (or at least a select group of Canadian marketers) had their heads up a part of their anatomy at SES Toronto. Andrew Goodman afterwards promised to force feed me Canadian politeness serum before he put me in front of another Toronto crowd. And Andrew, I want you to know I tried. I really tried. But then Rogers missed the boat in an incredibly stupid way, and, well..I may have said something similar again. I’m sorry, I really am.

Last year, I tore up the Ontario Tourism Board for not using search effectively, prompting a multipart debate with them in my Search Insider Column. First, I said they weren’t doing search. They said they were and I didn’t know what I was talking about. I looked at what they were doing and amended my stance: they were doing search, just not doing it very well. I offered free advice. They declined my offer. We went home in seperate cars. I didn’t get a card on Valentine’s Day. I think this time, it’s really over between us.

This year, having a hard time believing that Andrew was daring to put me in front of a Toronto crowd again, I decided to stay on safer ground and give a rather non controversial tour of why the Golden Triangle is the way it is, using results from several recent studies. But the main theme of the study was that relevance and the presentation of recognized brands are both critical elements in the Golden Triangle for commercial searches. I was finishing my slide deck on the day of the announcement that the iPhone was finally coming to Canada. Rogers would be the exclusive carrier. I just knew there would be a corresponding search spike and I thought this would be a great example of how to utilize search effectively. The following Google Trends Graph shows just how big this spike was:

google-trends-iphonesm

I searched for “iPhone” and what did I find? Nary a mention of Rogers. No ad, no organic listing.

google-iphonesm

I went to their site and other than a mysterious and unusable link off their home page that went to a 3 line media release, there was no information. Surely, Rogers couldn’t be this stupid, could they? But alas, they were.

So, I amended my slide deck to include the examples. And yes, I may have got a little hot under the collar at SES again, and I’m pretty sure I said something not so polite. But you know what? I’m getting sick and tired of going to the business capital of Canada year after year and seeing that the major Canadian brands are still miles behind the rest of the world in search. Do a search for any major consumer product in Canada and almost all the big brands are completely absent. They don’t get it. Or in many cases, their agencies don’t get it. Look, accept the reality. People search. People search because they’re looking to buy things. On June 10, thousands of Canadians searched for information on the new 3G iPhone. I’m suspecting more than a few of them are intending to snap one up July 11. And not one advertiser had the foresight to buy a search ad on what was probably the biggest search day of the year for iPhone, including the exclusive carrier. Correction, one advertiser did…Research in Motion, the maker of the Blackberry.

Maybe being big and stupid worked in Canadian advertising up to now, but it won’t work in the future. You have to understand that Canadian’s aren’t stupid when it comes to the internet. We’re amongst the world’s biggest Internet users. Our early lead in terms of high bandwidth penetration is slipping (another sign of sheer stupidity) but we still go online more than almost anyone in the world. Yet Canadian advertisers are avoiding search, turning the Golden Triangle into an advertising slum. Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft’s Canadian offices are slamming their heads into brick walls, wondering when Canadians will finally get it. They’ve all asked me. And frankly, I’m tired of apologizing for Canadian marketers. Yes, we’re a cautious country. Yes, we’re deliberate. But it’s gone beyond that. Now, there are no more excuses. Roger’s absense from the search page on June 10 was inexcusable. It was either stupid or incredibly arrogant. It was one of Canada’s best known brands telling thousands of Canadian’s looking for information on buying an iPhone one of two things:

  1. We’re huge and we have a monopoly so why do we have to spend a handful of our advertising dollars actually giving you useful information? We know you’re going to buy from us because you have no where else to go. And oh, by the way, we’re going to charge you whatever we want, or;
  2. Sorry, we just don’t get this whole internet thing. You mean people actually search for information online? Huh..imagine that.

I’m passionate about being a Canadian. I am tremendously proud of my country. But I’m also passionate about search. And in this one area, Canadians are ridiculously behind the curve.

Why Do We Search?

First published June 19, 2008 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

This is the second in a series exploring the question of how we interact with search pages and the impact on brand relationships. Today we look at why we search in the first place.

Let’s begin with perhaps the most fundamental question ever asked in this industry. Why do we search? I’ve been in this industry for over 12 years now, and I’m not sure I’ve ever heard an answer to it. Why do we seek information? Is this need cultural or inherited? Is how we seek information changing?

 

The Roots of Curiosity

We search because we are curious. And curiosity comes from chaos. Curiosity allows us to survive in a dynamic and unstable environment. The more things change, the greater our curiosity. It keeps us alert and looking for the knowledge we need to survive. So the drive to be curious is inherited, but the degree of curiosity is cultural. Our environment determines how curious we are. If nothing changed, we wouldn’t need curiosity. So it’s probably not coincidental that for some of us, curiosity declines as we age. We seek more stable environments. Our need to monitor and adapt to our environment decreases, and with it, our need to learn.

We seek information for many reasons. Remember, almost every action we take is driven by emotion, but there is usually a rational justification that accompanies it. Our emotions and our reason work together to pick the best possible path for us. Antonio Damasio has done extensive research in this area, referring to our emotional cues, our gut instincts, as “somatic markers.” Rational thought needs information, and information, in turn, feeds our emotions. Information is essential grist for our curiosity mill.

Essential Information

Information is key in everything we do. Either we have this information stored in our brains–allowing us to conduct the task in question or function normally–or we don’t, causing us to seek it. The problem in seeking information is not one of quantity, it’s one of quality. There has never been more information available, but it can be difficult finding the right information. In our culture, a huge part of our cognitive effort is spent filtering out the onslaught of information that bombards us every day. No culture in history has been surrounded by more information than our present one, and it’s expanding exponentially.

Sometimes our need for information is purely rational. We need information to complete a task (looking up a phone number, referring to a map, reading directions) or to learn something new. Sometimes our need for information is less clear-cut, tied in with the social machinations that make us human. Remember, gossip is a glue that binds our society, and gossip is nothing more than the gathering and sharing of personal information. So our information-seeking is often tied to an incredibly complex concept of social structure and status. Sometimes we seek information because we need it. Sometimes we seek information just because we want it. Information is a valuable currency in our society, and it can be one factor in determining social status. Obviously, the information gained from supermarket tabloids and searches for “Britney Spears” is of questionable value–but we, as humans, also have a need for this type of information. Information helps define political structure and alliances, in-groups versus out-groups, elevated status within a group and other purely social functions.

The Easiest Path to Information

Our quest for information comes from within and without. As we constantly scan our environment, we find situations we need to respond to. This can trigger a physiological and intellectual chain of events that requires information. We scan our store of information, retrieve what we have and identify what we don’t. Sometimes the need is immediate. We need the information now. Sometimes it’s far off and the information-seeking process is of much longer duration.

If we need to seek information because we don’t have it stored in our memory, most of us will take the easiest path. Our information retrieval habits will vary from person to person, but generally we seek to save energy, so we will take the shortest route to the information. And our path will be dictated by how well we know what we’re looking for. When we seek information, our quest can fall into three different categories: we don’t know what we’re looking for, we know what we’re looking for but don’t know where to find it, or we know what we’re looking for and where to find it. Which path we take to find information depends on where we feel it will be easiest to find the answer. When we talk about information-seeking and the ease of retrieval, the Web–and in particular, Web search–has been the most significant development in the history of man. That’s where we start in the next column.

Digging Still Deeper into the Search Branding Question

First published June 12, 2008 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

I love debate. I love defending my ideas, and in the process, shaping, refining and sometimes discarding them as they prove to be too unwieldy or simply incorrect. My last two columns have generated a fascinating debate around the concept of branding in search. Fellow Search Insider Aaron Goldman, comScore Chairman Gian Fulgoni, his senior vice president of search and media, James Lamberti, Erik du Plessis, Millward Brown executive and author of  “The Advertised Mind” (fascinating book, by the way), as well as a host of others, have taken up the debating gauntlet on this particular topic.

As luck would have it, we just wrapped up a study with Google in Europe — and data there seems to show that I’m dead wrong about the inability of unclicked search ads to build brand, reinforcing the view of Gian and Aaron (Aaron has his own research, and ours seems to support his findings). We saw brand lift (based on traditional metrics) of anywhere from 5 to 15% on even unclicked ads. And this was with thousands of respondents across four different product categories in three different markets, so I don’t think it’s an anomaly.

The easy thing would have been to toss in the towel and admit I was wrong. But I’m not so sure about that. I’m convinced the neurobiological underpinnings I outlined in my column two weeks ago are sound and that the reasons for the apparent contradictions lie in some aspects of the search interaction and brand recall that I overlooked and the metrics we use to measure them.

But, in looking at this, I realized that this topic lies at the heart of a fundamental and not-yet-explored aspect of search: how does it influence our brand relationships? In one regard, I’m wholly in agreement with Aaron, Gian and James. There’s a tremendous amount of branding value being left on the table with search. Where we differ is in the nature of that value. But that’s not an easy thing to explore. It’s certainly beyond the scope of a single column. So yesterday I sent an email to my MediaPost editor asking if I could use this column over the next several weeks to lay out my hypothesis for how we interact with search. Thankfully, she agreed. So, beginning this week, I’d like to begin unraveling that knot.

In my weekly columns over the next few months I’d like to explore several questions:

Why do we search: This goes to Aaron’s comment that we don’t always search for information about a purchase. And this is absolutely true. We search for many different reasons. I’ll look at what motivates us to search and our mental frame of mind when do so. Is searching a conditioned behavior?

Why we search the way we do: Through all Enquiro’s research, we have found very consistent search patterns. Why do we search the way we do? How do we forage for information? And why is a search engagement “thin,” while a Web site engagement is “thick”?

Why does searching trigger information retrieval, but doesn’t necessarily create new memories: I’ll look at how memory works, specific to the act of searching, and how this differs from other types of advertising.

Why we use search differently at different stages in our purchasing behavior: The way we use search early in the process can be significantly different than the way we use it later. And it’s not the classic search “funnel” you may think.

Why the traditional brand metrics used are not accurate measures of likelihood to purchase, especially when applied to a search interaction.

Why search can be the most important brand tool in a marketer’s arsenal, if it’s used in the right place. It’s a matter of understanding what search can do and what it can’t. And, even more importantly, understanding how to measure that value.

And finally, will the changing nature of search change the way it acts as a branding strategy?

In this process I hope to provide supporting research where I can (there’s little empirical research in this area). I’ll also be reaching out to others, including my debating partners, to capture their views as well. And, as always, I invite you all to join the conversation.

Branding, The Mind and Search

First published June 5, 2008 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

In my last column, I opened up the search “branding” can of worms regarding unclicked search ads and generated a fascinating discussion with Gian Fulgoni and James Lamberti from comScore, as well as Aaron Goldman from Resolution Media, who has unpublished research that sheds new light on the subject and counters my argument. I think it’s fair to say that the value of an unclicked search ad still needs further research to resolve the question.

If it proves that there is brand lift created, then the question of pricing models currently used comes back into play. As Lamberti mentioned, perhaps the problem is not the pricing model but the measurement methods. And, as Jonathon Mendez from Ramp Digital added, “Is Google leaving lots of money on the table? They’re the most insanely profitable company of our time — I think they know what they’re doing.”

How Much Value is There in Search?

Could it be that we’re all right? Could it be that there’s so much value in the search interaction that Google can be leaving money on the table and still be insanely profitable? I do believe that in the case of branding impact, there is a distinct difference in the nature of the impact of the search ad from almost any other form of advertising, which is the topic of this column.

As I said a few columns back, search is more than a channel. It’s a fundamental human activity, and the same things that may be working against search in an implicit engagement way are very much working for search in an explicit way. The nature of our engagement with search is much different from other advertising.

Daring to Define Engagement

The Advertising Research Foundation has been struggling with defining engagement as a cross-channel effectiveness metric for years now, without making much headway. The problem is that engagement with a TV ad is a totally different proposition than engagement with a search ad.

Let’s look first at TV. In the 1980’s, the ARF conducted a major research study called the Copy Research Validation Project (as referenced in “The Advertised Mind,” by Erik Du Plessis). The purpose of the study was to isolate the factors that were common in successful ads. What was the one factor most predictive of success, which was actually thrown in as an after-thought? Whether people liked the ad.

Before most ads can work, they have to get our attention. And we pay more attention to things we like. This led to a hyper-creative explosion in the advertising biz, as agencies churned out ads designed first and foremost to make us like them. Unfortunately, most ads forgot that once you get someone’s attention, you also have to sell something. And that can be a difficult balance to maintain. Our cues to switch selective perception to something that captures our attention and our natural defenses against unsolicited persuasion usually work counter to each other. And it’s in that dynamic abyss that 250 billion dollars of advertising — in the U.S alone — gets poured every year,.

Search: Likability is Not a Prerequisite

But search is different. You don’t need to like a search ad, because it doesn’t have to capture your attention. You’ve already volunteered that attention. Search is used to gather information about an upcoming purchase. You’re fully engaged. You’re focusing on it. There are no cognitive guards on duty, protecting you from unscrupulous persuasion.

There’s another difference. Other advertising interrupts you when you have no intention of considering purchasing the featured product or service. Search reaches you just at the time you’re most fully engaged in consideration. And there lies the tremendous value of search, as it opens the door to the most engaging interaction with a brand that there can be: the online visit.

The Most Effective Engagement Point

Once consumers have knocked on your door through search, you have a tremendous opportunity to engage them. They have expressed interest, they are actively and fully engaged, they’re looking for information and they are ready to be persuaded. In the universe of consumer motivation, all the planets are perfectly aligned. You simply cannot find a better touch point with a consumer than this.

But the key is, you have to let consumers drive that interaction. They may simply be looking for rational purchase validation information, they may be researching alternatives, or they may be looking to be emotionally persuaded. A Web site can do any and all of the above, but it has to be at the visitor’s imperative.

Do I think there’s tremendous brand value left on the table with search? Absolutely. And as James Lamberti from comScore said, uncovering that value lies first in better measurement. If we can prove the value, whether it’s implicit or explicit, that may indeed lead to a different pricing model. Let’s face it; we’re a long way from understanding online consumer behavior. As we gain more understanding, expect changes. Expect lots of them.

 

How Much Would You Pay for this Unclicked Search Ad?

First published May 29, 2008 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

As David Berkowitz mentioned a few columns back, comScore CEO Gian Fulgoni pondered the implications of the fact that 95% of Google’s search advertising inventory never gets clicked. All those millions and millions of impressions get thrown out there, just to fade away as a non event as soon as one leaves the results page. Our own research, which Fulgoni refered to, shows that presence at the top of the page does have an impact on brand awareness and propensity to buy. So, logically, even if a link is not clicked, there must be value there. Fulgoni wondered if perhaps Google was leaving significant amounts of money on the table with their cost per click model.

David looked at the implications of Fulgoni’s musings from a business model. I, staying on more familiar ground, would like to explore this from the user’s view. Ironically, although Fulgoni used our research to prove his point, I’m not so sure there is a latent brand impact from search if a link remains unclicked. Let me explain why.
Will You Remember Me?

There’s a distinct divide between the impact realized from interaction with the search results page and interaction after the click-through, on the Web site. And the difference lies in how the interactions get loaded into our brains. When the spotlight of attention is turned on, things go directly into the executive function mode of our brains, which is commonly called working memory. This is like a white board, where we gather the details needed to make decisions and store them. There are two limiting factors to working memory, capacity and duration. We can only load so much on this whiteboard, and it will remain only as long as we’re actively using it. After that, the board gets wiped clean, ready for the next decision.

When we’re using working memory, we’re fully engaging our rational loop. Things go directly to working memory. Depending on the importance of the information for us in the long term, we’ll either start creating the long-term memory hooks to retain it, or it will be left to be erased from short-term memory. Think of when you look up a phone number. Obviously, there is lots of other information on the page or Web site where you go, but you’re focused on just the number you need. You find the number and begin repeating it to yourself, effectively beginning the transition from short-term to long-term memory. The rest of the information you saw on the page, even if you were actively focused on it during the task, is almost mmediately wiped from your memory.

The memory hooks you create will depend on how long you need the number, and how often you use it. If this is going to be an oft-used piece of information, it will get stored for the long run in your semantic memory. If not, it will eventually wither away in memory purgatory, caught between the transience of short term and the enduring stability of long term.

Focus of Attention

When we interact with a search engine, our working memory is in high gear. We are very much focused on the task at hand, “berry picking” our way through the information presented on the search page. In split seconds, we filter our way through incredible amounts of information, seeking the cues of relevancy, or information scent, required to indicate which result best matches our intent. We don’t spend a lot of time qualifying the quality of the match. Click-throughs are low-risk investments. If we click through on a listing and it doesn’t provide what we’re looking for, we can easily click back to the results page and try another one. So we don’t spend a lot of time considering the results. We scan, filter and click. There’s little opportunity for unclicked messaging to pass beyond working memory and stick.

Fulgoni’s theory has one other thing working against it. Much brand impact is acquired implicitly. Even when we’re not focused on acquiring information, images, sounds and messaging are filtering into our brains at a subconscious level, there to help create our brand perceptions. But all interaction with the search results page is explicit, a very focused acquisition of information. Everything passes through executive function and working memory. There is no opportunity for brand messaging to sneak past the guard and find a nook or cranny of our cortex to lodge itself in. We’re diligently wiping the slate clean.

Fulgoni’s theory is interesting, but I’m not sure it holds up when we look at the neurobiology involved in the process. There is a tremendous branding opportunity in search, but unfortunately, it doesn’t lie in the unclicked ad. But more on that next column, when we look at the interaction on the search page, and what happens after the click-through.

Great Summit – But What Will We Call It Next Time?

First published May 22, 2008 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Less than 24 hours ago, my fellow columnists were sitting on a stage on Captiva Island, Fla., recapping the events of the three-day Search Insider Summit. It was Insider Aaron Goldman that first noticed the dilemma. “You know,” he mused, as he looked at his famous Summit Buzz Index list (more on this in Aaron’s next column), “I don’t see the word search in here.” We realized, together with the attendees, that in three days of earnest, thoughtful, engaged and even passionate discussion, we had talked about a lot of things: marketing, branding, conversations, engagement, intent, convergence, communities, mobile and local. But somehow, search remained implicitly rather than explicitly present in these conversations.

The Essentially Human Nature of Search

Perhaps we had outgrown search. But no, that wasn’t it. Search had outgrown us, or, at least, the box we kept trying to stuff it in. It went to something that I had touched on a few times over the past three days. Search isn’t a channel. Search is glue, search is ether, search is a synapse, a connection, a completion. Search is a fundamental human activity. Search isn’t a marketing tactic. It’s how we express ourselves.

Perhaps it’s the human need to categorize things. We tend to pigeonhole search and put labels on it. It’s direct response, it’s transactional, it’s pull rather than push. But search isn’t a noun, search is a verb. And it was only on the plane ride back that I started to realize how important that is.

Battelle’s Big Idea

John Battelle did a great job of poking at the import of this in his book “The Search.” But I’m not sure people realized how mind-boggling Battelle’s “database of intentions” is. It’s a vast concept, and that scares the hell out of most people. Similarly, Google’s goal to organize the world’s information can be as deep as you want to make it.

Let’s dissect this a bit so we can start to put appropriate scope to it, and you’ll realize that Google’s goal is maybe the biggest, hairiest, most audacious corporate goal in history.

There are few things humans need on a daily basis. We are biomechanical machines, so we need oxygen, water, food and sleep. We are social creatures, so we need to communicate. And we are rational beings (or at least, we come equipped with the necessary equipment for rational thought) so we need information. Given that, organizing the world’s information sounds like a good thing, right? It makes our life easier. But whoever organizes the world’s information also controls access to it. We pass at their pleasure.

A Toll on Information

Recently I had the opportunity to cycle up the Rhine Valley in Germany. Dotted along the valley are dozens of castles overlooking the river. The castles exist because the Rhine was the primary navigation route of central Europe, and robber barons realized that if they could control even a small part of the river, they could exact tolls and become fabulously wealthy. But even as bold as the baron’s were, their plans pale in comparison to Google’s goal. Imagine the ability to impose a toll on every single bit of information that we, as humans, need on a daily basis.

In a remarkably short time, Google has created a connection to the biggest repository of information ever collected, and each day, the company adds to it. Each day, our ability to access the information we need to function relies more and more on search, which means it relies on Google.  For almost any decision we make, we need information. Sometimes, the information is at hand, but when it’s not, we have to search for it. And, we will take the easiest possible route to do so. That’s why for more and more of our actions and decisions, there are corresponding searches. Search is not a channel, it’s how we act on our intentions and aspirations.

Search Centered by Default

Gerry Bavaro, another Search Insider, said it best. If you truly put your prospect at the center of your marketing strategy, it can’t help but have search at the core. It’s a given. When your prospect reaches out for the information required to make a buying decision, it’s highly likely they’ll reach out through search.

So, as we tried to put the wraps on three days of high-level thinking about search, we realized we had actually unwrapped something bigger than any of us realized. I’m not sure what you call it, but one thing’s for sure. It won’t fit in any pigeonhole.

Don’t Crown Google Yet – The Rules of Engagement are Still Being Determined

First published May 15, 2008 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

According to an article in the Financial Times, the search war is already over. Google’s won. Everyone else can go home now. Microhoo was the last potential challenger, and now that that deal is in shambles, the victory has been ceded to the search empire of Mountain View. Even fellow Search Insider Aaron Goldman has been searching for a Google Killer, and so far hasn’t found one. I myself said Google was going to be an extremely hard habit to break (in five parts, no less).

It’s true that these are dark times for desktop search. There is barely a whisper of resistance to the Google juggernaut. But to declare unconditional victory is a little premature. As Google itself is fond of saying, we’ve barely begun to play the search game. To declare it won now would probably be as myopic as awarding the crown to AltaVista in 1997. True, Google has a huge head start, but we’re not even sure which route the race will take.

Microhoo never could have won…

I’ve never been a fan of Microhoo. I think the acquisition would have been a huge mistake. The strategy seemed to be that by tying two sinking boats together, you could somehow catch Google. But the outcome was inevitable. Both Microsoft and Yahoo have fundamental issues in corporate direction and strategy, cultural cohesiveness and respect for their users. They have to get their own houses in order before they can challenge anyone. Putting two dysfunctional families together doesn’t make things any better. It just doubles the number of people yelling at each other. If the Microhoo deal had flown, it would have blown up in under a year. Google would have won regardless.

I’m not sure where Google’s competition is going to come from, but based on what I’m seeing (and the unfortunate Ballmer video that David Berkowitz made me aware of) it’s not Microsoft or Yahoo. In their hearts, they’ve already given up on Web search and are hoping to use ad networks as the next battleground.

Against the Rising Consumer Tide

Giving up on search and falling back on ad networks is monumentally stupid. I’ve said this so many times I can’t believe I have to keep repeating it, but I will. Ad networks are firmly rooted in yesterday. They’re an extension of an advertising mentality that’s based on disrupting prospects and keeping control in the hands of the marketer. Search propelled Google to its current status because it’s a discontinuous innovation. It’s customer-initiated marketing, marketing rooted in tomorrow, where the prospect is in control. By focusing on ad networks, you’re ignoring the voice of billions of consumers that have already spoken loud and clear. Yes, you can target. Yes, you can segment. Yes, it’s a whole new take on marketing, but it’s still marketing. It’s not innovative or paradigm breaking.

So, if we ignore search for a minute, and think about other ways that customers can exercise this control, we start to understand how vast the potential is. Mobile is often touted as The Next Big Thing, and I tend to agree. But really, mobile is just one channel. The really big thing is that now the masses have control, and they will exercise it. The winners will be the ones that figure out new and innovative ways for consumers to do so — and that requires a different kind of thinking. That, first of all, requires acceptance of the power shift. Ironically, Google started here, but the user-side focus is becoming a little blurry with the acquisition of DoubleClick. There is a mix of religions now in Mountain View, so even the Googleplex is starting to have signs of dysfunction.

Just When You Least Expect It

I think Google’s competition will come from the same place Google did. It will sneak out of nowhere. It won’t come from the stuck-in-yesterday mind ruts of Microsoft. It won’t come from the desperation of Yahoo. It will come from someone small enough, visionary enough, obsessive enough and ballsy enough to still do great things, without those great things being picked to death at the boardroom table. But, even here, Google might still win. Google’s greatest success came from not being swallowed by one of its competitors too soon, because no one was smart enough to recognize the threat. Despite Google’s not insignificant hubris, I think its executives are still able to recognize when their lunch is in danger of being eaten.

A Search Summit for the “Hidden” Experts

First published May 8, 2008 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

In just over a week, I’ll be the emcee at my third Search Insider Summit, on beautiful Captiva Island, Fla. This time around, I also lent fellow Search Insider, David Berkowitz, a hand in putting the program together. We started by asking some past attendees what they liked and what they’d improve about the shows. With the search show calendar as jammed as it’s becoming, it’s important to find a niche that attendees find valuable.

In these conversations, the almost unanimous response was “more conversations!” The size, scheduling, location and intimacy of the Summit are among its best features, in that they allow attendees to actually talk to each other. So this time around, we’ve allowed for more conversations than ever, by bringing attendees together for roundtable brainstorming breakouts on topics ranging from local and universal search to social media and cross channel optimization. Each table will be hosted by one or two experts in the area.

Search conferences are usually crawling with “hidden” experts who have just as much to add (maybe more) as the people presenting up on the panels. Often, these attendees lurk, remaining silent, and, if you’re extraordinarily lucky, you might sit next to one at the bar after the official show shuts down. This is when many attendees’ real education begins. These sessions are valuable because you can ask specific questions and get relevant and targeted answers. This was the value that our informal research uncovered.

At this Summit, we want to facilitate as many conversations as possible. Rather than vague generalities, we wanted to drill down to real-life scenarios, involving the people that are executing within those scenarios on a day-to-day basis. We’ll have plenty of the high profile experts at the summit, the ones who speak at the big events, but I encourage you to seek out the hidden experts as well. Talk to the people who are executing large campaigns for some of the big brands. Their sophistication is often amazing. Swap tales of tactics that have worked. Ask questions and generate discussions. This is what the Search Insider Summit is all about.

I’ve mentioned in the past that some of the best conversations I’ve ever had in this business happen at the Search Insider Summit. I’ve had great talks with many whom I’ve since stayed in contact with. I’ve been pretty involved with both the SMX and SES shows in the past, and I think both show organizers do a great job in providing packed tracks full of information. I’ve also presented at a few PubCons. But the size of these shows makes it difficult to facilitate conversations. They happen organically (most search marketers are not shy) but it can be tough to connect with people. I think the size and atmosphere of the Summit helps encourage that.

I hope I’ll see you there. I’m sure we’ll have some great conversations!