Category Archives: Search Marketing

The Sausage Manifesto: An Open Letter on Click Fraud

Jeffrey Rohrs has posted an open letter to the PPC Networks calling for a fresh approach to tackling the click fraud issue. He’s named it the Sausage Manifesto. In it, he outlines 11 things he’d like to see the networks do:

  1. Talk, Don’t Lecture
  2. Appreciate Our Unique Circumstances
  3. Invest in Proportion to the Problem
  4. Acknowledge that Tracking Alone Is Not the Answer
  5. Improve Click Quality Customer Service
  6. Build a Click Quality Education Resource Center
  7. Light a Fire Under the IAB
  8. Play Nice with Others
  9. Put Somebody in Jail
  10. Create a Click Fraud Perp Registry
  11. Put Your Data Where Your PR Is

I agree with all Jeffrey’s points, but to varying degrees. I think some of them are probably not completely fair to Google and Yahoo, but they do sum up the level of frustration with advertisers, so they have to be addressed and taken seriously by the engines. If we use Shuman Ghosemajumder and his team at Google for an example, I think they’re working on points 1, 3, 4 and 7.  But most advertisers aren’t aware of the extent of the effort and that, combined with a natural skepticism about any messaging coming from the Networks, who have so much at stake, are impeding much needed communication.

For that reason, I absolutely think it’s time to knock down the walls. I agree completely with points 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11, especially 11. The whole problem here is the lack of reliable data. We’re trying to peer over the walls. Google and Yahoo in particular have to be more forth coming. Nothing solves a problem faster than exposing it to the light of day. Information is the answer here, and getting the information into as many hands as possible. I appreciate Google’s efforts to police the problem, but this can’t be a siloed effort, it has to be a collaborative one. Having wrestled with the issue through SEMPO, I’ve seen first hand how access to data to even judge the scope of the problem can be a tremendous challenge.

Thanks to Jeff Rohr for crystallizing the thoughts of a lot of advertisers. Hopefully it acts as a catalyst to push forward solutions.

A Sign of Things to Come: eShopping at a Store near You

A small article in the Wall Street Journal (a subscription is needed to read the whole article) is a precursor of a big shake up to come. It’s something I’ve been predicting for sometime now, and while it will take awhile to gain traction, it will turn local retail upside down.

Three malls in California and one in Arizona have agreed to allow shoppers to check prices on actual inventory through text messages from their cell phones with a service called NearbyNow. According to their site, NearbyNow plans to add another 17 malls throughout the US to their network by April. Another service called Slifter is focusing on national chains like Best Buy, CompUSA and Foot Locker.

Here’s why this is revolutionary and why you’ll be hearing more.

  • For shopping, this represents discontinuous innovation. It’s a big win for the user, allowing them to shop smarter than ever before. Consumer demand will drive adoption of this new approach.
  • For retailers, this is scary as hell. By allowing their inventory to be captured realtime, they’re agreeing to be compared side by side with everyone else, including online retailers with no physical overhead to drive up prices. It completely levels the playing field.
  • As a number of technologies improve and converge, this will become substantially more useful and powerful. Mobile computing, GPS and search functionality will make this a must have for consumers.
  • It completely fuses the online and offline worlds, making the transition seamless.

This is one of those ideas you just know will take off, but there’s going to be some significant hurdles to overcome. These services are only as good as their success at signing up merchants. The more stores in the network, the more successful. If only a few are included, consumers will always wonder if there’s a better deal that isn’t part of the service, defeating the purpose. And a number of retailers will resist this trend til the bitter end. Ultimately, it will be consumer insistence that will force the laggards to join.

Another challenge will be the user interface. Right now, both services run on cell phones, meaning you have to deal with an awkward keypad and stripped down display. But this problem will rectify itself with advances in mobile technology.

In the world of shopping, this changes everything.

No Real Surprises in the Latest iCrossing Study

iCrossing released the results of a new study conducted by Harris Interactive just before the holidays. The study looked at the role of online in the CPG market. A media release outlines the key findings, including:

  • Consumers look for CPG’s online, with 39% of US adults confirming they’ve conducted a search for CPG’s.
  • Women do this more than man. Footwear and apparel lead the categories searched for.
  • Online CPG searches often result in offline sales. Much of this activity is looking for sales or special offers at traditional bricks and mortar retail locations.
  • Activity is spread pretty evenly over search engines, retailer websites and manufacturer’s sites. Shopping engines and consumer information sites have substantially less traffic.

There are a few notable take aways here that speak to the future use of online. Most CPG’s have been slow to move to online as a marketing channel. The more commoditized the product, the less the online research activity, or so traditional marketing wisdom has told us. Certainly, CPG’s have been very slow to enter the search arena, yet the iCrossing study tells us that there is a significant portion of the consumer population are turning online to research these every day purchases.

To be honest, I think the study is probably underreporting the frequency of this. At Enquiro, we’re steering away from self reported survey based vehicles as a sole vehicle to look at search behavior, because we find that people have trouble recalling how often they use search and what they use it for. It’s become second nature for us to turn to online, and that in turn usually means search. So in a survey like the iCrossing one, memory lapses usually mean overly conservative numbers.

Another notable trend that would influence the findings are the increasing spread of high speed internet access. The likelihood of this CPG online activity happening is directly related to how handy a computer with an internet connection is. The more ubiquitous access is, the more we’ll do a quick look up on everything. About the only purchases I make now that I don’t do some form of online research about are groceries. And as local search becomes more robust, that will probably change too.

I’ve been predicting another surge of advertising dollars migrating into search over the next year or two. As we understand more how universal online research truly is, and how a lot of major advertisers are completely missing this very important touchpoint, more budget will find it’s way into search. While there are no real surprises in the iCrossing study, it’s good that major advertisers are continually reminded that they’re missing a rather large boat.

Stepping into the Did It/Web Guerrilla/Searchengineland Fray

I came in this morning, and what did I find? Another tempest stirring up in the blogosphere! Danny Sullivan, Kevin Lee and Greg Boyser have all waded in, so what the hell, I’ll dive in too.

First, a little history. Did It President David Pasternack started the whole deal sometime ago when he took a swipe at SEO, calling for it’s imminent death. I’m not going to elaborate, but for those of you interested, here are links to the original article, and a follow up article.

Now, Kevin Lee from Did It has written a ClickZ column, adding some clarity, but also predicting organic results being pushed below the fold because sponsored ads are more relevant. I’m going to set aside for a moment the SEO spamming question that Kevin raises. Greg and Danny do a pretty passionate job of defending SEO.

I’d like to speak from another perspective, the search user. There are a couple things that should be considered here.

First of all, contrary to Kevin’s point, just paying for an ad doesn’t make it relevant. That’s because the vast majority of marketers don’t consider the intent of the search user. They assume that everyone is ready to buy right now. That assumption is at least 85% wrong. Go ahead, do a search for any popular consumer product. I’ll bet the ads you see are talking about lowest prices, free shipping, guarantees and other hot button items that are aimed at a purchaser. But study after study shows that search engines are used primarily for product research, not purchase. The problem is that marketers have a very biased set of metrics they use to measure return. They measure ROI based on purchase, so when they test, these types of ads tend to pull the numbers they’re looking for. But the metrics aren’t capturing the full story. The 85% of users that are researching are basically ignored. No value is assigned to them. Until PPC marketers figure this out, they’re not doing the user any favors.

Our research shows that a very interesting interaction takes place with the researcher versus the purchaser in that Golden Triangle real estate. Both users look at the top sponsored ads when they appear. They both look at the organic listings. Frankly, there’s not a lot of difference between the scan patterns. But it’s where they click that makes the difference. When they’re ready to buy, based on a recent eye tracking study, about 45% click on top sponsored, and about 55% clicked on the top 1 or 2 organic links. Almost a 50/50 split, FOR THOSE THAT ARE READY TO PURCHASE. But when we look at the other 85%, the ones doing research, EVERYONE OF THEM clicked on the organic link. And in the test, the same site appeared in both spots, so relevancy of the destination was equal. As long as users want organic links, organic optimization continues to be important.

Look, David Pasternack can ring the funeral bell for organic all he wants, but the fact is, it’s not his call. It’s the user’s. Yahoo has actually done exactly what he and Kevin are predicting. They’ve moved organic down the page, jamming more sponsored on the top. Based on Did It’s comments, this should be good for the user, right? It should be more relevant, pushing the “spam” down below the fold. Wrong. Google kicked Yahoo’s ass in user experience in our latest study by every metric we looked at. And they’re definitely winning in the big picture, including stock prices. The difference. About 14% of Yahoo’s screen real estate (at 1024 by 768 pixels) was reserved for top organic. 33% of Google’s real estate went for top organic. You want more proof? Ask, back in the Ask Jeeves days, pushed organic totally off the page, doing exactly what Kevin and David call for and filling the top with sponsored. Take a look at Ask now. Organic is back above the fold. Spend some time talking to Ask usability lead Michael Ferguson about how the absence of organic worked out for them.

And it’s not that sponsored links provide a bad experience. Our study proves Kevin somewhat right. Top sponsored links, for commercial queries, delivered the highest success rates. But those were in highly structured and commercially oriented scenarios. That doesn’t represent all searches. It’s not that we avoid sponsored links, but we do want a choice and we want relevance, ALIGNED TO OUR CURRENT INTENT. Google has recognized that to a much greater extent than their competitors, and they’re eating their lunch.

There’s a reason why 70% of users choose organic. We’ve done a number of studies over the past 3 years, and that number has remained fairly constant.  It can’t be because those results are filled with spam. I actually just chatted with Marissa Mayer at Google, and she continually emphasized the importance of organic on the page. It’s a cardinal rule there that at least one organic result will always appear at 800 by 600. It’s mandated by Larry and Sergey. And that’s because they know it’s important to the user. We want alternatives. And we will be the judge of relevancy. That’s why Google has stringent click through measures on their top sponsored ads. If they don’t get clicked, they don’t show. The top of the Golden Triangle is reserved for the most relevant results, period, and in more than 50% of the cases, those are organic (either through OneBox or traditional organic).

So we in this industry can debate sponsored versus organic. We can make predictions. We can post in blogs til the cows (or frogs) come home. But it’s not our call. It’s not even the engine’s call. It’s the user’s.

Google Pulls Back the Curtain on Quality Score – a Little

At the last few shows I’ve attended, an interesting theme emerged. Up to now, reverse engineering an algorithm was exclusively a preoccupation on the organic side. SEO’s would try to out wit and out guess Yahoo and Google’s black box. But with the introduction of quality score, that game suddenly moved to the sponsored side of the strategy table. Because the factors that went into the quality score weren’t disclosed, particularly by Google, it was a game of test and guess by advertisers. A lot of show attendees were expressing frustration that there wasn’t more transparency. Google has apparently heard the call, and yesterday issued a clarification.

Google’s advice?

  • Link to the page on your site that provides the most useful and accurate information about the product or service in your ad.
  • Ensure that your landing page is relevant to your keywords and your ad text.
  • Distinguish sponsored links from the rest of your site content.
  • Try to provide information without requiring users to register. Or, provide a preview of what users will get by registering.
  • In general, build pages that provide substantial and useful information to the end-user. If your ad does link to a page consisting of mostly ads or general search results (such as a directory or catalog page), provide additional information beyond what the user may have seen in your ad or on the page prior to clicking on your ad.
  • You should have unique content (should not be similar or nearly identical in appearance to another site). For more information, see our affiliate guidelines.

While a step forward, there’s still a lot hidden under the hood of this algorithm. Anytime you put algorithms in charge, it opens the door to reverse engineering, and you can bet the SEM community is going to launch a barrage of tests to try to determine the nuances that determine the quality of a landing page in the eyes of the quality score algorithm.

What this does do, however, is increase the complexity of the quality score substantially. There are now three seperate components, including user click through, ad quality and landing page quality. Each addition exponentially increases the complexity of the algorithm, making it a lot tougher to game. It harkens back to the original introduction of the Google PageRank algorithm, which went beyond on-the-page factors to introduce the whole concept of authority within the structure of the Web.

How important is the quality score? It’s vital. Moving up the ranks on the sponsored side is at least as important as on the algorithmic side, and if you can make the leap from the right rail to the top sponsored ads, you can expect a 3 to 10X increase in visibility and click throughs.

Our recent eye tracking study showed just how important relevancy is in these top spots. And Google has always been very aware of that importance. They have an obsession about providing relevancy above the fold, especially in the Golden Triangle, that is not matched by any of the other engines. I actually had a chance to chat with Marissa Mayer about this. The interview will be part of the Eye Tracking study (currently available, by the way, and you’ll get a free final version with Marissa’s interview when it’s available) but I’ll be including some tidbits in this blog as well.

Interview with Shuman Ghosemajumder about Click Fraud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where Do These Numbers Come From?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Impact in Dollars and Cents

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

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

But It’s Not that Simple

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

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

Search Gets Passionate in Vegas

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

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

3 Degrees of Passion

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

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

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

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

Search: Passion to Spare

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

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

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

Late to the Party? Look for Passion

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

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

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

Rules for Making B2B Search Marketing More Successful, Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 Rules for Making B2B Search Marketing More Successful

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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