Category Archives: SEO

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.

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.

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!

Strategy Spotting: How to Tell When You Find One

First published April 24, 2008 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

The difference between tactics and strategy can be monumental in the success of any marketing, and search is no exception. So, what are the telltale signs of a strategy? How can you tell when you’re dealing with a basketful of tactics rather than a well-thought-out strategic plan? Here are some things to look for:

Strategies are immutable

They remain constant, and so are expansive enough to accommodate the inevitable tactical shifts that will be required. Strategies provide bearings for the team involved, providing a navigation point that everyone can refer to. Napoleon was one of the best military strategists that ever lived, but he said that he never once had a battle go according to plan. Life never rolls out exactly the way we plan it. But, if you know what your strategy is, you can make the necessary adjustments on the fly and not lose sight of your objectives.

Strategies are not objectives

Strategies are not the same as objectives, but the two are integral to each other.  Strategy needs an objective. And realizing objectives is a lot easier with an aligned strategy. But the two can’t replace each other. A great primer in objectives, strategies and tactics is provided by this supposed quote from Colin Powell during Desert Storm.

In a press conference, asked what the objective was, he replied, “Liberate Kuwait.”

“What’s the strategy?”

“First we’re going to cut it off, then we’re going to kill it [referring to Iraqi forces).’

“What tactics are you going to use?”

“Tactics are Schwarzkopf’s job.”

Strategies are simple yet profound

The best strategies boil down to one absolutely crystal-clear concept that everyone can understand. The more people you have working on a strategy, and the more spread out they are, the clearer your strategic foundation has to be. Airlines provide a good example. Southwest’s strategy? To be THE low-cost airline. JetBlue’s? To make coach suck less. Those are clear strategies that everyone, from CEOs to pilots to baggage handlers, can understand. It also gives every team member the latitude to decide on the best tactical execution to achieve the strategic objective.

Strategies are customer-centric

Strategies have to be defined both from the outside, looking in, and the inside, looking out. Because of this, strategies have to begin with a clear understanding of your customers and their relationship not just with your company, but also your competition. You must be able to see how they differentiate you from your competitors, not how you believe you might be different. Then, you can use this external perspective to define your internal objectives, improving what must be improved and accentuating what is already good. It’s this view from the outside that allows you to determine the things you should do, and more importantly, the things you shouldn’t do. It helps you decide what the really important things are.

Strategically speaking, where do you begin?

So, if after this strategy-spotting primer, you decide you don’t have a strategy, how do you start building one? It’s no quick task. Strategies come from a lot of soul-searching, hundreds (or thousands) of really tough questions, and the courage to say no to things that seem really important. And strategies have to begin at the top. They come from developing a deep and honest understanding of your customers and, more importantly, your own company.

Strategy is hard. Really hard. But no company who has ever made the significant investment required has ever regretted it.

Think You’re Strategic? Think Again.

First published April 17, 2008 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

It’s one of the banes of this industry that we often use the words “strategies” and “tactics” interchangeably. Conferences that fly the strategy banner offer a deep dive into multiple tactical tracks. Sessions that promise cutting edge strategies in fact deliver tactics. Now, I have nothing against tactics. The right tactic can be a beautiful thing, when it’s used to execute on a strategy. But they’re not the same thing.

The Dingoes Ate My Strategy

I went off on this topic at the recent SMX in Sydney. I was asked to present at a session that offered out-of-the-box PPC tactics. I hijacked the session and said that it’s hard to know what out-of-the-box is until you’ve defined the box. Strategy defines the box. If you’re building a house, strategy is the blueprint; tactics are the tools you use to put the house together. Apparently I scared a few Aussies by my impassioned plea not to confuse the two.

The reason for my rant? Because all too often in search we get enamored with a brand new tool and forget to look at the blueprint. This is not a new message for me. Check the byline blurb at the bottom of this column. It’s been the same message since I started writing this column, almost 4 years ago now.

I don’t think anyone disagrees with me that strategy is a good thing. But why does our focus so often slip from the strategic to the tactical? Why do we keep losing sight of the forest for the trees? Rick Tobin, our director of research, came up with one possible reason. Tactics are easy to own and even easier to delegate. They’re a “tick off” item on our to-do list. Strategy requires more thought. It’s a lot slipperier to get hold off.

The First Step is Admitting You Might be Making a Mistake

I tend to take a strategic slant when I present at conferences and shows. And because of that, I think I ask more from my audience. I’m asking them to question what it is they might be doing right now, because it might be the wrong thing. Strategy demands that you ask tough questions of yourself. It challenges your beliefs. And that’s a hard thing to ask of humans. We’re wired to ignore anything that might cause us to change our mind.

I know firsthand how tough it can be to keep focused on your strategy and to execute effectively against it. It’s a constant challenge in my company, and the same is true for every company I know that values strategy. You have to think your way through this stuff. You can’t do it on autopilot.

Tactical Mastery or Strategic Stumbling

It’s a lot easier to focus on a tactic. We like to master things, and you can do this at a tactical level. You can be a great link builder, or PPC manager. You can become the wizard of analytics, or the master multivariate tester. And these are the things you’ll find on the typical search conference agenda. I think it would scare the hell out of most attendees to go to a session titled “Strategic Soul Searching: Are All Your Marketing Efforts in Vain?” To be fair to the show organizers, most attendees come looking for tactics. Almost no one comes looking for strategy. They may think they’re looking for strategy, but they’ve mixed up the terms.

Books like “Good to Great” and “Built to Last,” as well as almost anything by Peter Drucker or Tom Peters, ask you to look at things from a strategic vantage point. Even Covey’s “The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People” provides you with the strategic building blocks for a more effective personal life. In his books, Jim Collins warns that this is not a quick process. Companies can take a decade of dedicated persistent effort to really discover their soul and define their strategic direction. You can pick up a tactic in a 15-minute presentation, but a strategy takes a lot more time.

The Strategic Common Denominator

Personally, I’ve felt that by providing glimpses into user behavior, I can help provide a lens to help see things from the outside in, an essential perspective for strategic evaluation. Part of any strategy in marketing always depends on gaining a deeper understanding of the common denominator, humans. The more years I add to my CV, the more I realize we need to spend some time understanding the weird quirks and traits that make us all too imperfectly and irrationally human. And it’s from that understanding that your strategy will eventually spring forth.

To wrap up for this week, I leave you with a quote from Sun Tzu, the military strategist:

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

Back from SMX Sydney

SMX Sydney was a great show. Barry Smythe did an awesome job putting the show together, along with some pretty cool introductions, like real time polling, but shows are about people and location, and in this case, you couldn’t ask for better in either regard. Rand and Neerav from Oz posted more.

I mentioned at the show that I had never spent so much time on a plane to get to somewhere that felt so much like home. Everyone was amazingly friendly and really interested in anything that we International Speakers (Rand Fishkin, Danny Sullivan, Ciaran Norris, Adam Lasnik, Jane Copland, Ani Babian, Frederick Vallaeys…sorry if I missed anyone) had to say. And when you add in dinner at the Opera House and a real Aussie BBQ under the bridge, well, jaw dropping to say the least.

Also quite enjoyed a trip to Manly Beach with Rand, Geraldine and Jane. I wrapped up my visit with Canadian ex-pat Tom Petryshen and his wife (who comes from my part of BC) for a great dinner of BBQ’d kangaroo and prawns.

Rand called this possibly the best conference he’s attended..ever. Organizer Barry Smythe assumed he meant outside of North America. Barry, I think Rand meant that without qualifiers. For us, who made a long journey down to attend, the entire event was amazing.The size, the people and the location combined to make this one a home run.

Wedding Night Advice for Microsoft and Yahoo

First published February 7, 2008 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Now that there seems to be some sort of union in Yahoo’s future, blessed or otherwise, I felt the urge to pass along some advice to whoever the happy couple might be. For, in all this talk about the impending nuptials, the clear objective is to survive and compete in the business of attracting the attention of prospects online.

I offer this advice on behalf of users, because frankly, I think that’s the only perspective you should be interested in. I’ll explain why.

Why Search is Essential

First of all, there’s a lot of talk about how a Microsoft-Yahoo deal would give you the biggest chunk of the online ad network space, and this is true. But I hasten to add: Don’t forget search. Google has stumbled in rolling out another significant revenue channel that holds up against its search business, yet it has still dominated. That’s because the importance of search has been understated up to this point. Here’s why search matters.

Search is the thin edge of a wedge that is marking a fundamental change in advertising. And it’s fundamental because it’s initiated by the prospect. The importance of that sometimes gets missed by marketers, who start looking at search as just another weapon in their arsenal.

Search is important because of expressed intent. That puts it in a whole different league than all other advertising, online or off. Behavioral targeting is effective, but it’s still intrusive and interruptive. We ask for search results. That’s a different level of engagement, a different balance of control, and a different mindset on the part of the prospect. It’s the first place that balance shifted from the marketer to the customer, but it won’t be the last. Search is forging the way, but customers will demand that level of control and relevance to intent in more commercial communication from corporations. So, for all the talk about ad serving networks, it’s vital that the new duo gets search right. All the truly effective revenue channels will lead from search and the new principle of prospect initiation, including the vast untapped mobile and local markets. You can’t afford to screw it up.

Users Come First, Advertisers Will Follow

Secondly, all you should be focused on is one thing, and that’s meeting the expressed need of the user. Don’t talk to me about balanced ecosystems or serving the needs of both users and advertisers. While as an advertiser I appreciate the consideration, as a user I call it hogwash.

Search cannot serve two masters. One has to prevail. And it should always, always, always be the user. Users are the prospective customers, and without them, the equation doesn’t work. Get users, and the advertisers will follow. And those advertisers will play by the rules laid out by the users because they have no choice. Google gets it (probably due to the philosophical bent of Google and an inherent suspicion of advertising) and you’ll have to get it too to compete. So those ads better be highly relevant and in the user’s interest if they appear. If they’re not, don’t show them.

If you pay attention to nothing else, please pay attention to this one point. It’s vital to your success.

Church and State: Antiquated Concept?

The final piece of advice is not to be so set on holding on the divide between church and state on the search results page. This is one holdover from the offline world that may be due for rethinking.

The concept of the church/state divide came from the fact that advertisers will always push their advantage. That’s one reason why you can’t have a balanced ecosystem. Advertisers have always had a much louder voice that gets heard more often. So in traditional channels, the only answer was to divide up the page (or other real estate). Advertisers had free reign over some sections, but they had to keep their hands off others. Consequently, we’ve learned to largely ignore the real estate given over to advertisers. The success of this church/state division has been questionable in the past, but it’s a relic of journalistic thinking that somehow became entrenched in the world of search.

But if you pay scrupulous attention to my first two pieces of advice, you don’t have to worry about church/state. The fact is that in search we have expressed our desire for relevant information, and if that information is commercial in nature, and it matches our intent, than we’re open to it. At my company, we’ve looked at interactions with search advertising in minute detail, and while people will self-report an aversion to advertising in general, in the midst of a task, relevance trumps all. If an ad is the closest match, it will succeed.

This opens the door to mash up editorial functionality with commercial messaging in a richer way. As search becomes better at determining intent and delivering richer results, the opportunity exists to seamlessly integrate commercial messaging with other information in a user-centric way. But user trust is paramount. Let the user set the rules of what’s acceptable.

So, whatever happens, this is the advice I would give. There’ll be a lot on your mind in trying to navigate the new union, so I’ve kept it simple. You can thank me later.

Still Live (But Slightly Bruised) from Park City, Utah

First published December 14, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Yesterday at the Search Insider Summit in Park City, I was precariously perched out on a limb. I kicked off the summit by defending my position that big agencies won’t “get” search. Given that the Summit attracts a fair number of attendees from the world of big agencies, I’m wondering if the organizers of the show (thanks, Nick… thanks, Ken) were setting me up for an unfortunate ski jump accident.

My opponent in the debate was Mike Margolin. If you’ll check the comments on the blog from the previous column, you’ll see that Mike and I started the debate there, and have now brought it to the ski hills of Utah.

“Doing” and “Getting” Are Two Different Things

My position is that search is something big agencies will “do” because they have to, but they’ll do so reluctantly. Search is not aligned to the cultural or creative DNA that defines a big agency. So, they’ll never “get” search.

Mike’s position is that big agencies will absolutely “get” search, because they have no choice. The big agency table is where the brand strategies are determined, and search will play an integral role in that. In fact, if you’re not at the table, you’ll be shut out.

What Does History Teach Us?

The argument is a good one. It’s logical and seeming inevitable. But if you look at history, it’s also without much precedent.

When discontinuous innovation happens (and search is definitely a discontinuous innovation) it’s almost never the established power players that adopt it and capitalize on it. I previously used the example of the adoption of electricity by corporate America, another discontinuous innovation. Then, the big, established companies had invested heavily in steam power. It took them 50 years to adopt electricity, even though the advantages of electrical power were obvious. By the time they made the move, younger, smaller, faster-moving and more nimble companies had passed them by. Many of the industrial dinosaurs never recovered and died away.

That’s how evolution works. The succeeding species replaces the previously entrenched one because of a change in DNA — but also because the existing power species underestimates the importance of that change.Why would the dinosaurs change? From their vantage point, towering over the mammals, they were invulnerable. It was inevitable that they would prevail. Or so it seemed at the time.

How’s the View Up There?

From the big agencies’ perspective, high atop their vast media-buying empires, the agency monoliths seem invulnerable. It’s only if you’re scurrying around down here at ground level that you see the cracks in the ground underneath them.

Finally, let’s touch on the fact of just how important search is. Search is just the thin edge of the wedge that’s forever changing the nature of marketing. Mass marketing is gone. Micro marketing is here, but the thing that makes search so fundamentally important is pull versus push. It’s about people (as fellow columnist Kaila Colbin pointed out in Tuesday’s column ), but more than that, it’s about knowing them and meeting them halfway, one person at a time. That’s what search does, and what it will do with increasing effectiveness over the next decade. This market doesn’t lend itself to mass campaigns. Instead, it means millions of micro campaigns.

But here’s the fundamental reason why agencies won’t embrace search and its pull versus push paradigm. Agencies persuade. It’s why they exist. Their jobs are to use everything at their disposal — creativity, cleverness, research, targeting, emotional appeals — whatever it takes to get us to buy something. That fits well with their push mentality. That’s why agencies love TV. At this point, TV is still the most persuasive medium out there.

But you can’t persuade someone in search. Advertisers have tried, and it’s failed miserably. Search is, at best, multiple-choice. Pick from A, B, C or D, based on which you think is the best match for your intent. There’s no room for persuasion. There’s only what’s present, and picking, and the last of these, the fundamental outcome of search, is totally in the user’s control. We spend a few seconds making our decision. We don’t even read the text. We don’t need to be persuaded to learn more. We’ve already made that choice. So we’re immune to persuasion when we’re on a search engine. In fact, we’ll purposely ignore it. By trying to do search, agencies are going against their most fundamental nature.

Passing the Tactical Torch to the New Kids

First published November 29, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

After the recent SMX show in London, I had a chance to have a wrap-up dinner with conference chair and Search Engine Land Executive Editor Chris Sherman. Chris and I, both feeling a little long in tooth, realized that there’s been a generational transition in search. The new generation is taking over the tactical stuff. As Chris said, “This blows away the traditional block and tackling stuff we used to do.” These are hotshots that live and breathe social media optimization, get a visceral rush out of an elegant link baiting campaign and measure their prowess through the number of Diggs they collect. They’ve taken organic optimization to a new level.

The Slow Surrender of the Sluggish Synapse

It was somewhat ironic, as I spent my sessions at SMX talking about things like bounded rationality, working memory and satisficing. To me, the working of the human mind is infinitely fascinating and that’s where I’ve been spending my free hours. I’m quite content to leave it to the up-and-comers to scramble up the listing hierarchy to grab the top slots. I’m more interested in what happens from the user side when they’re presented with those listings. Of course, I have the luxury of having a talented team working with me that can focus on the tactics while I play in my little strategic sandbox.

It reminded me of a passage I remember reading somewhere. A mathematician’s washed up by the age of 35 (I know, this is a point of controversy and I’ve read arguments on both sides, but I’m just using it as an example, so don’t get all worked up about it) but philosophers only hit their stride well into middle age. There’s a difference between sheer mental acuity and wisdom. Now that my synapses are slowing down, wisdom is really the only option open to me, so I’m grasping at it with both hands.

Wisdom: The Consolation Prize for Growing Older

I think it’s generally true that younger people tend to flex their mental muscles by solving puzzles of defined scope. They concentrate on the question ahead of them and revel in pushing the limits, punching holes in traditional thought and taking on risk that would prove unpalatable to a more pragmatic middle-ager, all in search of a solution that allows you to say, undeniably, that you’ve won. There are definitely winners and losers in the game of SEO. Number one is a winner. Everybody else is a loser, although in this case, the degrees of losing increase as you move down the page. It’s like sports. Nobody remembers second place. This appeals to the bravado of youth. SEO is for the young, and the young at heart.

But the question of who wins is a little more difficult to determine if you’re asking “why” questions. Why do people do what they do on search engines? Why do they make the decisions they do? Why do they pick certain brands over others?

I think unraveling the answers to “why” questions require patience and a more seasoned world view. There are fewer “aha” moments that signal victory. Answers are teased out little by little and added to the general body of knowledge about why we do what we do. The qualities that lend themselves to this approach come with age. They require being students of human nature. I’ve found that as I’ve grown older, I’ve become less frustrated with human frailty and more fascinated by human complexity. Of course, I’ve also become crankier. All of which makes me difficult to live with.

Search’s Big Picture: Step Back and Refocus

This trend also speaks to a maturity in the search space. It’s encouraging to know that search has started to develop a “big picture” that allows for strategic thought. Search was exclusively tactical in its early days, because its limited, siloed scope made it so. But now, search has become so integral in so many activities, we find overlap in almost everything we do. I can find much common ground in how we make decisions and how we use search engines. The top of this particular box is starting to open. And the broadening of approaches to optimizing search both as a marketing channel and as a human activity is healthy. As author Daniel Pink said, we need to develop our right-brain skills, “such as forging relationships rather than executing transactions, tackling novel challenges instead of solving routine problems, and synthesizing the big picture rather than analyzing a single component.”

So, as we walked down Edgware Street in London looking for a restaurant (we ended up finding quite a good Lebanese place), Chris and I talked about this passing of the torch and came to the conclusion that we’re okay with it. To be honest, I really don’t have a lot of interest any more in the tactics of search. That doesn’t diminish the importance of them; it just means that I’d rather do something else with my time. “What” doesn’t really capture my attention anymore. But “why”? Now there’s a question I can sink my teeth into. At least, while I still have teeth.