Category Archives: Online Trends

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.

Jobs: Reading is Dead

That’s right. As you’re reading this, let me be the first to tell you, you’re hopelessly out of touch with the world according to Steve Jobs:

“It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore. 40% percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year. The whole conception is flawed at the top because people don’t read anymore.”

That fresh from Macworld. The comments came from a quick dismissal of the Amazon Kindle book reader.

I have to admit I don’t get the logic of Kindle, but apparently a lot of people do. This article in Ad Age indicates the Kindle has a long waiting list. The same article states that reading of good, old fashioned books, the kind printed on (gasp) paper, seems to be very much alive and well, thank you. I would think that J.K. Rowling, Malcolm Gladwell and dozens of other best selling authors would tend to agree.

I actually carry 5 or 6 books at a time on my PDA, but I have to say, I still love the sensual attraction of a book. I love the heft, the texture, the sound and the smell. Sure, it can be inconvenient carrying them around, when the same bulk and size as one book gives you an entire virtual library. Not to mention the trees that needlessly give their lives so that I might swim upstream against the technological current. But in this case, I’m afraid I’m a hopeless Luddite.

Actually, I’ve pretty much ignored the TV in the past 6 months and taken up reading again in a big way. And I’m very thankful for it. If anything has to die, please God, let it be reality TV.

Jobs is a smart guy with his finger usually unerringly on the pulse of pop culture, but in this case, I think Steve’s out to lunch.

SpaceTime: Another Dimension to Search

The quote on the home page of SpaceTime is intriguing:

“I think I’ve found a product that makes the Google interface look like it was designed by Apple.”
Rob Enderle, Enderle Group.

Now, those are two pretty big names to throw around. But you know what? Based on an initial test drive, SpaceTime just might be up to the challenge. This is a paradigm shift in browsing behavior. When I interviewed Jakob Nielsen last summer, he took Ask to task for calling their interface 3D.

Gord: Like Ask is experimenting with right now with their 3D search. They’re actually breaking it up into 3 columns, and using the right rail and the left rail to show non-web based results.
Jakob: Exactly, except I really want to say that it’s 2 dimensional, it’s not 3 dimensional.
Gord: But that’s what they’re calling it.
Jakob: Yes I know, but that’s a stupid word. I don’t want to give them any credit for that. It’s 2 dimensional. It’s evolutionary in the sense that search results have been 1 dimensional, which is linear, just scroll down the page, and so potentially 2 dimensional (they can call it three but it is two) that is the big step.
Well, SpaceTime attempts to jump the gap to the 3rd dimension by giving web browsing depth as well as heighth and width. Is it successful? Yes and no. But there’s enough “yes” here to significantly change your browsing experience, especially when it comes to searching, and to entice you with what the possibilities might be.

spacetimeopensm

(I tried to get more screenshots, but SpaceTime is a bit of a memory hog, and I didn’t have enough to run SnagIt and SpaceTime as the same time without them both crashing)
Lately I’ve been spending a lot of time writing and talking about how search helps us make decisions where we have to gather and compare alternatives, as in researching an upcoming purchase. This is called satisficing, and search is built to be a natural extension of our working memory. But one of the drawbacks is searches fairly rigid interface. We can usually only see one page at a time. Even the introduction of tabbed browsing, while a step in the right direction, still feels rigid and linear. We pogostick back and forth between pages and the search results. And as I’ve said before, linear is not how humans operate. We’re used to dealing in random ways in 3 dimensional environments. The 20th century squeezed us into a linear, 2 dimension, sequential mode, just because we didn’t have any choice, but the 21st century will be one of navigating within 3 dimensions (and probably 4, as technology allows us the shift timelines to suit our purposes more often) and picking our own random paths through them, berry picking our content. SpaceTime (notice the inclusion of the 4 dimensions in the name) is an interface built to allow this to happen.
Don’t Worry, Be Crappy
Guy Kawasaki always says, when you have something revolutionary, don’t worry, ship it even if it’s crappy. It worked for the Mac. Let’s hope it works for SpaceTime.
Now, to be fair, the SpaceTime interface is far from crappy, it’s a prettty polished piece of work. But if we’re moving into a 3d environment, I want to be able to interact with it in an intuitive way. SpaceTime doesn’t quite allow me to do this yet. I can’t grab and manipulate items in the 3d space. I have to use the buttons and controls SpaceTime provides to go from page to page. But the advantages SpaceTime offers, allowing me to quickly flip from page to page, all the time keeping a visual history of my browsing in a bottom timeline, more than makes up for the pain. This turns pogo sticking into an experience more like spreading options on a table in front of you, allowing you to spot the things that appear to be what you’re looking for. And that’s a big shift from what we’re used to.
In the test drive, I also found that auto loading videos and other rich streaming media seemed to give the SpaceTime interface some hiccups (interrupting the SpaceTime continuum — sorry, couldn’t resist) but I’m sure that’s being worked on. This is version 1.0, after all. Generally, it performed pretty well. In fact, one of my favorite uses was browsing through videos in SpaceTime.
But if we look forward into where things are going, with multitouch displays and surface computing, SpaceTime is the step that’s needed into a much more natural user experience. I’m sure the grab and manipulate options I’m looking for are just a version or two away, waiting for more access to the underlying OS to integrate these features in. But Microsoft or Apple has to let this happen. In fact, once you get used to operating in SpaceTime, going back to 2 dimensions just seems clunky. I’d be amazed if one of the two doesn’t snap SpaceTime up soon. Of course, it could also be that SpaceTime just got out first and there’s something in the Apple or MS labs very similar. I’d love to see a mobile version of SpaceTime on the iPhone!
And this is the cloud on SpaceTime’s horizon. While it’s revolutionary, it can’t survive as a stand alone app. This is something screaming to be incorporated into our online experience, and much as I like it, I probably won’t use it again. It’s great for searching, but rather pointless for standard browsing. Where it shines is when you need to consider a number of alternatives, as in search. It’ll linger at the bottom of my programs list, out of sight and out of mind.  I’m too used to my current browsing experience, and the paradigm shift required to use it as my new browser is too great. Without being adopted by a major player, the proverbial 800 pound gorilla, TimeSpace may die on the far side of the Chasm. And that would be too bad, because SpaceTime is all kinds of cool. Let’s hope either it shows up on a MS or Mac interface, or finds a niche it can survive in. Perhaps it’s the next Google acquisition.
Check out SpaceTime. Just one word of advice for them. Dump the autoplay video. It irritates the hell out of me. And is it just me, or does CEO Eddie Bakhash look like Danny Bonaduce?
But I digress.

Persuasion on the Search Results Page

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

Chris Copeland took out 2007 with one last jab at the whole “agencies getting it” thing. Much as I’m tempted to ring in the New Year by continuing to flog this particular horse, I’m going to bow to my more rational side. As Chris and Mike Margolin both rightly pointed out in their responses to my columns, we all have vested interests and biases that will inevitably cause us to see things from our own perspectives. Frankly, the perspective I’m most interested at this point in this debate is the client’s, as this will ultimately be a question the marketplace decides. So, for now, I’ll leave it there.

But Chris did take exception to one particular point that I did want to spill a little more virtual ink over; the idea of whether persuasion happens in search. Probably the cause for the confusion was my original choice of words. Rather than saying we don’t persuade people “in search” I should have said “on the search page.” Let me explain further with a quick reference to the dictionary, in this case, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/persuadeMerriam-Webster:

Persuade: to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action.

In the definition of persuade, the idea is to move someone from their current belief, position or course of action to a new one. The search results page is not the place to do this. And the reasons why are important to understand for the search marketer.

For quick reference, here’s Chris’s counterargument: Persuasion is at the heart of everything that we do in search — from where we place an ad on a page (Hotchkiss’ golden triangle study) to how we message. The experience we drive to every step of the process is about understanding behavior and how to better optimize for the purpose of connecting consumer intent with advertiser content.
I don’t disagree with Chris in the importance of search in the decision-making process, but I do want to clarify where persuasion happens. What we’re doing on the search results page is not persuading. We’re confirming. We’re validating. In some cases, we’re introducing. But we’re not persuading.

As Chris mentioned, at Enquiro we’ve spent a lot of time mapping out what search interactions look like. And they’re quick. Very quick. About 10 seconds, looking at 4 to 5 results. That’s 2 seconds per listing. In that time, all searchers can do is scan the title and pick up a few words. From that, they make a decision to click or not to click. They’re not reading an argument, entreaty or expostulation. They’re not waiting to be persuaded. They’re making a split-second decision based on the stuff that’s already knocking around in their cortex.

Part of the problem is that we all want to think we’re rational decision-making creatures. When asked in a market research survey, we usually indicate that we think before we click (or buy). This leads to the false assumption that we can be persuaded on the search page, because our rational minds (the part that can be persuaded) are engaged. But it’s just not true. It’s similar to people looking at a shelf of options in the grocery store. In a study (Gerald Zaltman, How Customers Think, p. 124) shoppers exiting a supermarket were asked if they looked at competing brands and compared prices before making their decision. Most said yes. But observation proved differently. They spent only 5 seconds at the category location and 90% only handled their chosen product. This is very similar to responses and actual behavior we’ve seen on search pages.

Now, if someone is in satisficing mode (looking for candidates for a consideration set for further research) you can certainly introduce alternatives for consideration. But the persuasion will happen well downstream from the search results page, not on it.

Am I splitting semantic hairs here? Probably. But if we’re going to get better at search marketing, we have to be obsessed with understanding search behavior and intent. Chris and I are in agreement on that. And that demands a certain precision with the language we use. I was at fault with my original statement, but similarly, I think it’s important to clear up where we can and can’t persuade prospects.

Of course, you may disagree and if so, go ahead, persuade me I’m wrong. I’ll give you 2 seconds and 6 or 7 words. Go!

Highlights from the Search: 2010 Webinar

Yesterday, I had the tremendous privilege of moderating a Webinar with our Search 2010 Panel: Marissa Mayer from Google, Larry Cornett from Yahoo, Justin Osmer from Microsoft, Daniel Read from Ask, Jakob Nielsen from the Nielsen Norman Group, Chris Sherman from Search Engine Land and Greg Sterling from Sterling Market Intelligence. It was a great conversation, and the full one hour Webinar is now available.

I won’t steal the panelists thunder, but the first question I posed to them was what they see as the biggest change to search in the coming year. Most pointed to the continued emergence of blended search results on the page, as well as more advances in disambiguating intent. A few panelists looked at the promise of mobile, driven by advances in mobile technology such as multi touch displays, embodied in the iPhone. After listening again to the various comments, I’ve put them together into 4 major driving forces for Search in 2008 and beyond:

Disambiguation

The quest to understand what we want when we launch our search is nothing new. How do you deal with the complexities and ambiguity of the English language (or any language, for that matter) when you’re trying to make the connection between the vagaries of unexpressed intent and billions of possible matches? All we have to go by is a word or two, which may have multiple meanings. While this has always been the holy grail of search, expect to see some new approaches tested in 2008. We’ve already seen some of this with the search refinement and assist features seen on Yahoo, Live and Ask. Google also has their query refinement tool (at the bottom of the results page), but as Marissa Mayer pointed out in the Webinar, Google believes that as much disambiguation as possible should happen behind the scenes, transparent to the user.

The challenge with this, as Marissa also acknowledged in the Webinar, is that there are no big innovations on the horizon to help with untangling intent in the background. Personalization probably holds the biggest promise in this regard, and although it was regarded with varying degrees of optimism in the Webinar, no one believes personalization will make too much of a difference to the user in the next year or so. All the engines are still just dipping their toes in the murky waters of personalization. Using the social graph, or tracking the behavior of communities is another potential signal to use for disambiguation, but again, we’re at the earliest stages of this. And, as Jakob Nielsen pointed out, looking at community patterns might offer some help for the head phrases, but the numbers get too small as we move into the long tail to offer much guidance.

For the foreseeable future, disambiguation seems to rest with the user, through offering tools to help refine and focus queries, and possibly doing some behind the scenes disambiguation on the most popular and least ambiguous of queries, where the engines can be reasonably confident in the intent of the user. The example we used in the Webinar was Feist, a very popular Canadian recording artist. But “Feist” is also a breed of dog. If there’s a search for Feist, the engines can be fairly confident, based on the popularity of the artist, that the user is probably looking for information on her, not the dog.

More Useful Results

The second of the 4 major areas goes to the nature of the results themselves, and what is returned to us with our query. Universal (Federated, Blended, etc) results are the first step in this direction. Expect to see more of this. Daniel Read from Ask led the charge in this direction, with their much lauded 3D interface. As engines crawl more sources of information, including videos, audio, news stories, books and local directories, they can match more of this information to user’s interpreted intent. This will drive the biggest visible changes in search over the short term. For the head phrases, those high volume, less ambiguous queries, engines will become increasing confident in providing us a richer, more functional result set. This will mean media results for entertainment queries, maps and directory information for local queries and news results for topics of interest.

But Marissa Mayer feels we’re still a long ways from maximizing the potential of the plain old traditional web results. She pointed out some examples of results where Google’s teams had been working on pulling more relevant and informative snippets, and showing fresher results for time sensitive topics. Jakob Nielsen chimed in by saying that none of the examples shown during the Webinar were particularly useful. And here comes the crux of a search engine’s job. Just using relevance as the sole criteria isn’t good enough. For someone looking for when the iPhone might be available in Canada, there are a number of pages that could be equally relevant, based on content alone, but some of those pages could be far more useful than others. The concept of usefulness as a ranking factor hasn’t really been explored by any of the algorithms, and it’s a far more subtle and nuanced factor than pure relevance. It depends on gathering the interactions of users with the pages themselves. And, in this case, we’re again reliant on the popularity of a page. It will be much easier to gather data and accurately determine “usefulness” for popular queries than it will be for long tail queries.

By the way, the concept of usefulness extends to advertising as well. A good portion of the Webinar was devoted to how advertising might remain in sync with organic results, whatever their form. Increasingly, as long as usefulness is the criteria, I see the line blurring between what is editorial content and what is advertising on the page. If it gets a user closer to their intent, then it’s served its purpose.

Mobile

When we’re talking innovation, the panel seems to see only incremental innovation in the near term on the desktop. But as a few panelists pointed out in the interview, mobile is in the midst of disruptive innovation right now. The iPhone marked a significant upping of the bar, with its multitouch capabilities and smoother user experience. What the iPhone did in the mobile world is move the user experience up to a whole new level. With that, there’s suddenly a competitive storm brewing to meet and exceed the iPhone’s capabilities. As the hardware and operating systems queue up for a series of dramatic improvements, it can only bode well for the mobile online experience, including search.

Remember, there’s a pent up flood of functionality just waiting in the mobile space for the hardware to handle it. The triad of bottlenecks that have restricted mobile innovation – speed of connectivity, processing power and limitations of the user interface – all appear that they could break loose at the same time. When those give way, all the players are ready to significantly up the ante in what the mobile search experience could look like.

Mash Ups

One area that we were only able to touch on tangentially (an hour was far too short a time with this group!) is how search functionality will start showing up in more and more places. Already, we’re seeing search being a key component in many mash ups. The ability to put this functionality under the hood and have it power more and more functional interfaces, combined with other 2.0 and 3.0 capabilities, will drive the web forward.

But it’s not only on the desktop that we’ll see search go undercover. We’ve already touched on mobile, but also expect to see search functionality built into smarter appliances (a fridge that scans for recipes and specials at the grocery store) and entertainment centers (on the fly searching for a video or audio file). Microsoft’s surface computing technology will bring smart interfaces to every corner of our home, and connectivity and searchability goes hand in hand with these interfaces between our physical and virtual worlds.

That touches on just some of the topics we covered in our one hour with the panelists. You can access the full Webinar at http://www.enquiroresearch.com/future-of-search-2010.aspx. We’ll be following up in 2008 with more topics, so stay tuned!

Another Year, Another SEMPO Survey

First published December 6, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

As chair of SEMPO, one of the things I’ve seen establish itself is the regular SEMPO state of the market survey. Every year about this time, we field a gargantuan survey (in excess of over 400 questions, including all the possible branches) in which we attempt to capture a relatively complete snapshot of where search is at this given point in time. We use the data captured to analyze year over year trends and attempt to project forward  how these trends might develop over the coming year. This year, in addition to the main survey, which primarily collects North American data, we’ll also be launching a smaller European version, scheduled for the new year.

One of the interesting things about the survey is that it can act as an early warning system for emerging trends. Among the biggest variances last year was the clear signal that many marketers would ideally like to move their search marketing management in-house. Over the course of the year, we’ve certainly seen this start to happen, and my suspicion is that we’ll continue to see this trend play out in 2008 and beyond. In-house marketers are the fastest growing SEMPO membership segment. By digging this point out of the data, we were able to put it on the radar of search agencies, letting them know that perhaps the value provided wasn’t quite up to what clients were looking for. It may not have been good news, but it was vital.

Two years ago, click fraud emerged as a major concern. While the urgency of click fraud seems to have lessened, it’s still a nagging doubt that seems to linger in the background and throw a shadow on the effectiveness of search as a marketing channel.

Other data points worth mentioning: Last year, for the first time, search seemed to pierce the consciousness of C-Level executives. This trend literally appeared out of nowhere, as one year previous these execs were barely aware of search. Heightened awareness on the executive floor might be responsible for some of the directives to bring search in-house. If you want something to capture the attention of executives, make it a budget line-item. For many companies, search broke this threshold in 2007.

Also, while many marketers seemed to feel there was still room to up their keyphrase bid amounts, the ceiling seemed closer than ever before. Pricing fatigue became a reality for more and more search marketers.

That was the backwards look at last year’s survey findings. This time around, it will be interesting to see how what has arguably been the biggest year of change in search has impacted marketers. With the rollout of unified (or universal, or blended, or 3D, or whatever the label du jour is) and personalized search, the interface has undergone some pretty dramatic changes. While the impact on most of our campaigns has been minimal to this point, we’re all thinking about how this might change the game. It will be interesting to see what changes in attitudes towards search as a channel boil out of the data.

So, if you have a few minutes to spare (about 10 to 15 should do the trick) make sure you take this year’s survey. Like any study, its accuracy is totally dependent on how many people volunteer their information. The more who take it, the more we can slice and dice the data and pull more nuggets out of it. And, by taking it, you get the first look at the findings.

Finally, a word of thanks to my SEMPO research co-hort, Kevin Lee from Did-It. He puts a lot of hours into question formulation and testing every year, all of them as a volunteer. This survey is really his baby.

Edison Also Asked: “When Will People Get It?”

First published November 15, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Over the past few weeks, my general theme has been “why don’t more people get it?” Why don’t agencies get search. Why don’t CEOs get search? Why don’t more search portals get that it’s the user that determines your success? Why don’t more people get that the world is changing, quickly? What’s with us, anyway?

Well, this week, I gained a little insight; thanks to a paper by Paul David called “The Dynamo and the Computer.” Maybe we just need some time. It’s not the first time this happened. Let me tell you the story of the light bulb.

Lighting Up the Industrial Age

Edison introduced the first practical incandescent light bulb in 1879. The first generating stations in New York and London started their dynamos spinning in 1881. Profound changes were to follow. Productivity was to grow by leaps and bounds.

Factories in the 1800’s were dark, noisy and not particularly pleasant places to spend a day.  At the center sat the steam engine: a huge, hungry and finicky behemoth, connected by an extended system of belts to the operating machinery of the factory. Even the early electrical engines were smaller, cleaner and much more efficient. Electric lighting made 24 hour shifts more practical. The benefits were obvious. Electricity was the ultimate “no-brainer.”

Still in the Dark

But by 1899, almost two decades after the introduction of the light bulb, only 3% of homes were “wired.” And the much-predicted impact on the North American industrial engine would have to wait until the 1920s to take hold. It took a half century for electricity to make much of a difference in America.

You see, technology tends to move fast, but people move slowly. It’s because transition tends to be dependent on many factors. It’s not like the flicking of (quite literally, in this case) a light switch. It’s more like waiting for a long series of dominos to fall into place, each drop contingent on the previous one.

In the case of electricity, significant money had been invested in steam power. You don’t just rip it all out and start over again, no matter how compelling the advantages might be. So factory owners waited for things to break down, and then retrofitted with new electric engines. But even this retrofitting had to wait for the supply of electrical engineers to catch up. In 1899, not many people knew how to design an electrical delivery system. The skill gap had to be eliminated. And this lack of expertise also showed up in less direct ways. America also had to wait for a new generation of factory architects to appear, who could design factories built to be powered by electricity. For every obvious benefit of electrification, there was a long series of factors that had to fall into place first. That’s why it took five decades to turn on the light.

History Repeating Itself

This technology adoption curve has been repeated over and over. The replacement of horsepower with steam power. And more recently, the information technology revolution. We can get as frustrated as we want with the snail’s pace reluctance of many to grasp the realities of the new world, but the fact is, we’re just being human.

Technology adoption usually follows a predictable path: introduction of technology, commercialization of technology, layering the technology onto what preceded it, and finally, throwing out the old completely and building from the ground up to embrace the technology. Each step depends on the step before it. And in every case, legacy investment slows the speed at which we move from one to the other.

If we look at the adoption of Internet technology and compare it to previous technology adoption curves, we’re just starting up the beginning of the long and steep part of the “S” curve. There’s no doubt we’ll get there, but it will take time.

Android and Pondering the Future from Portugal

AlgarveSagresThis afternoon, I saw what was, at one point, probably the most exciting and terrifying place in the world. Sagres is the southwest corner of Portugal. From this point, sailing west, you leave the Mediterranean and enter the vast expanse of the Atlantic. Beyond Sagres was no man’s land. Everything safe and familiar was behind you. New worlds of discovery and vast expanses of the unknown lay beyond. It was a powerful personal experience. Sitting on a rock overlooking the cliffs, looking at nothing but water, you discover something primal in yourself.

It was also metaphorical. We’re on the cusp of our own voyage. In our world, there’s a lot of unknown that lies ahead. For anyone that has pondered where we’re at, and what it might mean for us in the future, the possibilities are as exciting and frightening as they must have once appeared from the vantage point of Sagres.

It was somewhat fitting that the day I visited Sagres was the same day that Sergey Brin announced Google’s support of Android developers, to the tune of $10 million. No one doubts the potential of mobile. We all know that ubiquitous computing and access to the Internet will change everything. It will put the world in our hands.

And Google’s move into the space is interesting to think about as well. They’re betting on the power of community and open source to be the best way to reduce the friction so prevalent in the mobile space. Lack of standards, in fighting between telcos, convoluted politics between hardware manufacturers and service providers: Google is saying to hell with it, opening the door and letting things fall where they may. It’s a greenfield ripe for exploring, so the more the merrier! If our bets pay off (and in the grand scheme of things, $10 million is less than a pittance) there’s more than enough potential here for everyone. Forget control, let’s just get the ball rolling.

So, not to get all metaphorical on you, but if you compare it to the exploration of the new world, with many of those voyages rounding the point of Sagres, you’ll find a lot of similarity. Unlimited potential, a lot of unknowns, great odds that somebody’s going to get rich and, if you really think about it, scary as hell. But then, that could just be the Madeira talking.

Caution Will Kill You in the Search Game

First published November 8, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

A strange thing started happening to me in the last two years or so. As I became more vocal about my opinion, people started seeking it out more often. The more I shared it, the more people nodded their heads. And the more obnoxious I got about it, the more people jumped on my own little opinion bandwagon. It you look at comments to this column as an indicator of striking chords, it seems like I touch cords either when I’m being a total dickhead (increasingly frequent) or introspective and emotionally deep (a much rarer occurrence). But other than a “right-on” post or comment, and the vigorous nodding of heads, I’m not sure it will go much further than that. Inside, we all like to be smarter than our bosses and a little bit revolutionary. But on the surface, where we live and work, we go with the flow. I call it the Cluetrain Conundrum.

The Cluetrain Manifesto was posted in 1999, when the Internet was still new and bold and gritty. Much of the initial grass-roots appeal that tweaked the interest of Messrs. Locke, Weinberger and Searles has since been paved over to make room for commercial storefronts. At the time of publishing, as an in-your-face, spit-in-your-boss’s-coffee and laugh-all-the-way-to-the-corporate-bathroom call to action against the cluelessness of the command and control establishment, it attracted its own rush of “right-ons.”. In fact, since it went online, thousands have signed the Manifesto. It seemed like the world could change. But now, eight years later, we’re still waiting.

You see, it’s one thing to say you’re ready to change. It’s another to convince the rest of the people in all the cubicles in all the offices in all the world that you’re right. You know it, and the person in the next cubicle knows it, but the chowderheads in the X-0 suites seem intent on running the company off the cliff. Why? In a word, caution.

No, Really, Tell Me what You Think…

In the last few months, I’ve been asked for my opinion on how to improve certain search properties. I think the people asking me are hoping for an answer like this: “You see all these ads you’re trying to get people to click on? Well, all you have to do is move them here and put this colored box behind them, and people will sprain a finger trying to buy from your advertisers. It’s that simple!”

Of course, it’s not. It’s understanding all the things that the Cluetrain authors were trying to get across. It’s understanding that markets are conversations, that we’re sick of advertising, that we long for authenticity and transparency, and that we can sniff insincerity and BS a mile away. It’s saying that you have to worry about users first, build up truckloads of trust, and then figure out how to make money. And that’s just not likely to happen when you already have an existing search property.

The problem is that you’re already somewhat successful. There’s existing revenue and advertisers. Generally speaking, although attrition is higher than you’d like, most of the advertisers keep coming back. And as long as they’re doing that, management won’t be very motivated to change. Because the changes required are not simple fixes. They’re stripping things down to the foundations and rebuilding for the user. And that means a lot of money, and almost certainly lost revenue in the short term, against the remote possibility of long-term gain. That’s a ton of risk, and it’s not surprising that someone in the C-level executive wing is unwilling to stake their corporate reputations on this particular roll of the dice. There’s a lot better chance you’ll go down in flames than be crowned a hero.

The Illusion that You Have a Choice

But the irony here is that while it appears you have a choice, you really don’t. Because if you don’t take this chance, someone with a lot less to lose will. And eventually, that someone else will win. They’ll win, and you’ll lose, because Web traffic is a zero-sum game. Just ask every search engine who’s not Google. So while it appears there’s way too much to lose by reinventing your business model, it’s much, much riskier not to. Because as much as you think you’re in control of your business, you’re not. The users are, and you have them now by the simple virtue of there not being a better place to go — yet. In the Internet world, there will always be a better place to go, eventually. Either you build it or someone else will.

Last month, in a hotel lobby, I was having this conversation with somebody who had asked me my opinion. I basically told him what I’m telling you today and asked him if his company had the courage to do this. He wasn’t sure, and asked how important it was. I said it depends on the competition. He was a little reassured, because their competition is even more cautious. The reassurance was short-lived when I replied, “Ah, but that’s the competition you know about. Chances are, this is going to come completely out of the blue and you won’t know what hit you.”

I suspect people are going to stop asking my opinion.

Will Agencies Get Search? Don’t Hold Your Breath

First published November 1, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

It seems like anytime I have a conversation with anyone who knows search and its effectiveness, we always come back to the same question: “Why don’t more ad agencies and brand advertisers get search?”

Just this week, I was having this conversation. Twice, in fact. One of my pet peeves is an arbitrary allocation of budget to search, with no regard for the objectives of a cross-channel campaign. “We’ll take this pile and give it to television. We’ll take this slightly smaller pile and give it to print. Here’s a small pile for online, and, oh, make sure you take a little bit of that and set it aside for search, because everyone’s telling us we should be doing search.” I guess I shouldn’t be complaining. At least there’s now a little bit left over for search, which is a vast improvement from where we were just a few years ago.

But what this approach does is force your search campaign to be managed to budget, rather than to overall objectives. So we see more restrictive targeting, movement down the tail into longer and more specific key phrases, day parting and flighting, geo targeting and other ways to slice and dice the campaign to get the best quality clicks from the budget available.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with this. It’s called campaign optimization. But it’s often done to keep within an arbitrary budget cap that has no logical reason to exist. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Search dollars should be the first ones in, not the last. Take as much search inventory as you can get. Judge your costs per acquisition not against your top performing keywords, but against your other channels, both online and offline. If even the marginal search traffic is generating a lower CPA, beg, borrow and steal as much budget as you can and top up search. Only then should you move from “pull” (prospects holding up their hands to purchase through search) to “push” (trying to persuade latent prospects to purchase). Only put restrictions on your search campaign if you’re absolutely certain that another channel can exceed its effectiveness.

The Classic Brand Building Gambit

Sure, you say, but what about ‘branding”? That’s TV’s domain. Well, I disagree. I think there’s no better branding opportunity than deep engagement with a Web site from a qualified prospect. Again, this is someone well down the funnel who is considering his or her purchase options. And search drives these opportunities. Sure, TV, print and other channels can build brands, but I challenge anyone to prove to me that they build brands as cost-effectively as search driving Web site engagement. I’ve yet to see a study that shows that. I’ve seen several that show search blowing away other channels, including the CPG study I wrote about last week. Brand-build with prospects that are ready to buy first, then build with the “maybe, someday” crowd with what’s left over.

So, why is it such a struggle to get search on the horizon of big agencies and advertisers? I’ve come to the conclusion that search is being held back by four things:

Search is small. Advertisers and agencies like to think big. They like big, bold ideas. Killer campaigns. Knock-your-socks-off creative. Search is none of those things. Search is thousands of micro-niche campaigns. Search is granular and gritty. Search is turning a whole bunch of dials and pulling a lot of levers, to squeeze out new customers a few at a time. You can’t “unveil” a new search campaign, like snatching a sheet off a sculpture. Launching a search campaign is more like putting a million grains of sand into a bucket, one spoonful at a time. That’s not a concept that “brilliant” advertising minds can get fired up about.

Search is measurable. You can measure the hell out of search. You can hold everyone accountable. You can demand to know who screwed up the campaign because your ROI dropped 10 points. That can cause a lot of red faces round the ol’ agency conference table.

Search is hard. Because search is granular, search is hard. It takes a lot of work to squeeze out an impressive bottom line. And the harder you work, the more impressive that bottom line will be. You’ll never hit a search home run with one inspired brainstorm. There is no golden concept. You just keep plugging away, tweaking keywords and pulling in prospects. Agencies and big advertisers are looking for that single perfect run down the mountain, with fresh powder and the sun shining. Search is more like cross-country skiing up the mountain.

Search is utilitarian. Search is constantly accused of not being sexy. That drives me nuts. The irony is that in pigeonholing search as being boring and utilitarian, all these brilliant advertising minds are missing the biggest idea of all: search works because it’s the customer driving the process, not the advertiser. All you have to do is a half decent job of meeting them halfway. Some say it’s that lack of control that scares the bejeebers out of agencies and brand marketers. To be fair, I don’t think that’s always true. I just think that search just doesn’t get the juices going in the average marketer. It may not be that they’re scared; it may just be that they’re bored.

And for all these reasons, I don’t think big agencies will ever truly get search. It’s too much of a cultural mismatch for them. They’ll bring search in-house, but they’ll silo it off, in a back room, far from the playground which is really where everyone wants to be, cranking out killer creative for the next TV campaign.

It’s just too bad that those TV ads won’t work very well. At least, not when you compare them to search.