Category Archives: Personal

A collection of personal thoughts and stories

New Behavioral Column on Search Engine Land

After months of negotiation (okay, maybe days) the first Just Behave column runs on Search Engine Land. When Danny Sullivan first mentioned he wanted the new site to explore user behavior and usability issues, I sent him an email saying “Hey, I would love to do that!” Today it kicks off in grand fashion with an exclusive interview with Google’s Marissa Mayer. Next week, we talk to Larry Cornett at Yahoo! and the following week, Justin Osmer at Microsoft, all about the user experience on their search engines. I’ll also be continuing my regular Thursday slot on SearchInsider and try to keep up the blogging pace. So far, so good.

Speaking of Mr. Sullivan, I actually got to see him at several notches below his typical level of hyperactivity at shows when we both participated on a panel at Microsoft’s AdChamps Summit in Seattle. Also shared the panel with Todd Friesen. The Microsoft people did a bang up job. I’m under NDA so I can’t spill the beans on much, but their vision of the future of advertising is pretty cool. As the stuff rolls out, I’m sure we’ll be getting you the details when we’re able. If you want the “official” version of what Microsoft is publicly previewing, check out Kevin Newcomb’s article over at Searchenginewatch.

BusinessWeek Dissing Paid Search (Again)

Okay, BusinessWeek is beginning to get a little obvious in its campaign against paid search. In my books, they just received their third strike.

Strike One

An “expose” on the SEM Sweat Shop floor that showed a remarkable ignorance for the diversity of the industry. I responded to this little journalistic gem in a SearchInsider column last May. In it, search marketers were called “digital bricklayers”. Here was one quote:

“The work ranges from the slightly creative, such as … crafting sentences for ads to snag search traffic, to the rote — typing in descriptions of hamburgers for online menus.”

It was not wrong so much as one dimensional. BusinessWeek shows a tendency to paint the entire industry with a single brush.

Strike Two

This time BusinessWeek took on click fraud, with a similarly one sided perspective. They approached it focusing on the most egregious cases of click fraud, with examples of both perpetrators and victims. This is fine to draw attention, but they should also provide an accurate assessment of the overall problem. They used numbers that came from faulty research, like Outsell’s much quoted study and passed it off as an accurate assessment of the scope of click fraud with the slippery qualifier, “most experts believe”. They virtually ignored the balancing viewpoint of the engines themselves. Again, I dealt with this in another SearchInsider column and a follow up post. This is just one of many articles from BusinessWeek pumping up concern about click fraud. And most imply that the majority of the problem lies with Google and Yahoo.

Strike Three

The latest one indicates that advertisers are souring on search ads because of rising click costs and decreasing ROI. Again, they’ve taken a few cases and given the impression that it represents the entire industry. So, let me dive in again. Yes, PPC costs are rising. And yes, if you’re not tweaking your campaigns, you could find your ROI dropping. But here’s the thing. The advertisers finding this are the direct marketers. And as I’ve said over and over, there’s an inherent disconnect here. Direct marketers are looking at selling something..now. And their ads say as much. One of the advertisers quoted as complaining about the ineffectiveness of paid search in the articles was eBags.com

Okay, let’s say I search for “best luggage” on Yahoo. Here are the ads that come up:

luggageexample

Hmm..apparently eBags isn’t that turned off sponsored. But let’s get to the disconnect. What are the chances that if I search for “best luggage”, I’m looking to buy right now? How interested am I in saving 60%? I’ll tell you, based on past research. Less than 1 in 10.  In fact, it’s probably less than 1 in 20. I’m looking to see what the best luggage is. I’m researching. And where will I click? Well, let me show you the number one organic result for the same search in Yahoo.

luggageorganic

This is where I’m going to click, because it’s a much better match to my intent.

So, for those advertisers hell bent on jamming a purchase down a consumer’s throat, I have three pieces of advice:

  • Get to know how search works better
  • Get to know your consumers better
  • Get to know how your consumers use search better

If you do those 3 things, you’ll get a much better return than you will from desperately steering budget into different channels without putting some solid strategy and understanding behind your campaigns. The problem is not that search is getting less effective, it’s that marketers using it aren’t getting any smarter.

From the “Living in Glass Houses” Category

And finally, when I went to try to read this article on BusinessWeek, I had to click through an interstitial. When the hell will online publishers learn that these are incredibly annoying and detract significantly from the user experience? Give me a bushel of paid search ads, aligned with my intent, any day over one interstitial.

A Day in the Life

First published January 4, 2007 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

The U.S. Census Bureau has just released its new statistical abstract. According to the study, here’s how the average adult or teen will spend his or her time in 2007:

  • 65 days in front of the TV;
  • 41 days listening to the radio;
  • A little over a week on the Internet;
  • A week reading a daily newspaper; and
  • Another week listening to recorded music.

I have just one question: Who the hell are these people? Nobody I know.

The Census Bureau was unavailable for comment on the findings, so I have to make some assumptions. I’m assuming that the Internet time includes any work-related activity. So I tallied up my time on the Internet, actively using it, and found I averaged about 4 hours a day. Granted, I’m not a normal user (in oh-so-many ways) but bear with me. That means I spend almost 2 months on the Internet in a year.

Okay, I represent an extreme, and I realize that. So how about my wife, Jill? She is above average in nearly every regard, but when it comes to Internet use, is probably a closer approximation of your garden-variety user. Jill spends about an hour-and-a-half online a day. That puts her at just over 3 weeks of surfing in a year. My kids? About two-and-a-half hours a day, the majority of that chatting with umpteen zillion friends simultaneously on Messenger and butchering the English language I love, but I digress. That’s about five-and-a-half weeks in a year.

Perhaps the whole Hotchkiss family is abnormal when it comes to using the Net. Who are the least Net-savvy people I know? My Mom and Dad. Even they spend a half hour a day online, which puts even them slightly higher than the U.S. average.

Let’s attack the question in a different way. Let’s put together a day in the life of this mythical average American. According to the statistical abstract, here’s how his or her day is spent:

4.27 hours watching TV

2.7 hours listening to the radio

And roughly a half hour each surfing the Net, reading a newspaper and listening to music

Let’s assume that this person gets an average of 7.5 hours sleep and spends another 1.5 hours eating. That leaves fewer than 7 hours a day to do everything else, including being gainfully employed (unless their job is actually watching TV). Into that basket would fall things like reading a book, going for a walk with your family, hitting the gym, cleaning up the house, going on a vacation and talking with friends. Something seems askew here.

So I’m left with two possibilities. Either I have a warped view of the world because everyone I know represents the extreme end of the spectrum, or the U.S. Census Bureau has its facts wrong. If it’s the former, that means there are people, somewhere, that are really dragging down our collective average by remaining comatose in front of the TV for the better part of a day. I knew they existed, I just didn’t know there were so many of them. And it can’t really be the second possibility, can it? I mean, when’s the last time you remember the government getting its facts wrong?

 

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.

Yahoo’s Quiet Guy is Moving On

First published December 21, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Last spring, I attended the Pubcon conference in Boston put on by Webmaster World. During one of the breaks between the sessions, I was tucked away in an empty room trying to keep up with the inevitable flood of e-mails.

Well, truth be told, the room wasn’t quite empty. There was another person, also hunched over a laptop, working at the table next to me. We were both pretty absorbed and quiet. It was one of those situations where you’re wondering whether it’s better to not introduce yourself and run the risk of looking like you’re ignoring the person, or break the silence and acknowledge the other person by way of a quick nod and hi. I eventually opted for the later, and I’m glad I did. This was the way I met Yahoo’s Tim Converse.

Tim posted on his blog earlier this week that he’s moving on from Yahoo. Knowing Tim, albeit not that well, I sat and thought about this for awhile. It brought up a number of interesting questions about our industry. I thought them worthy of comment.

Don’t Judge a Book…

Tim is a pretty quiet guy. In fact, many readers of this column probably don’t know who Tim is. He’s the head of Yahoo’s anti-spam patrol, so he’s a bit like the Matt Cutts of Yahoo. But not quite. While Tim came to Yahoo through the acquisition of Inktomi way back in 2003, he has generally let the spotlight shine on his counterpart at Yahoo, the more vocal Tim Mayer. In an industry notorious for flocking the algorithmic cops at the major engines (see my first encounter with Mr. Cutts) Tim Converse can walk through most shows unscathed and unrecognized. In fact, it’s only very recently that I’ve seen Tim participate on a panel at a show, at this fall’s Pubcon in Vegas. Tim is not as comfortable in the public eye as his counterparts; he doesn’t have the same practiced ease of the other Tim or the open charm of Matt, but it becomes quickly apparent that his brain is packed with algorithmic gold. This guy knows his stuff. And if you’ve ever had the chance to chat with Tim or read his blog, you’ll find a razor-sharp wit and some pretty deep thinking lies below that deceptively calm exterior.

Moving On

The post went live on Tim’s blog on Monday. The well-wishers that commented made it clear that while many may not know Tim, those that do have a great deal of respect for him. Posters included Cutts and Danny Sullivan. While Tim’s announcement didn’t elicit the same type of response that Sullivan did when he dropped his bombshell that he was moving on from the Search Engine Strategies franchise (imagine what would happen if Cutts posted that he was leaving Google), one can’t help but wonder what the impact on an already battle-sore Yahoo might be. Certainly no one is irreplaceable, but Tim was a definite asset in the relevancy war staged by the big three. He’s looking forward to seeing the showdown continue, albeit from a distance: “Who is going to have the highest-quality general web search a year from now? I think it’s still going to be a brutal battle between the current top three (including MSN), and the winner will be whoever can innovate and execute the fastest. I’m sorry I’m going to watch that particular game from the sidelines, because it’s definitely not even halftime yet.”

Hot Property

My other thought that came from Tim’s departure is more a precursor to what will inevitably happen at all the major engines. The people who serve on the algorithmic side of the engines, like Tim, are privy to an extraordinary amount of proprietary information. Now with the introduction of quality scoring on the sponsored side, the same is true for these teams as well. At some point, all that knowledge is apt to walk out the front door and never return. I’m sure Yahoo’s corporate legal department has a sheath of nondisclosure and noncompete agreements, but those have always been relatively hard to enforce when put to the test.

This concern over trade secrets is certainly not unique to search, but with the importance of search for millions of marketers, it does put a universally recognized premium on the value of that knowledge. It’s inevitable that others from all the three engines will follow Tim’s lead and move along. When they do, they will suddenly find themselves hot properties–even if they tend to be quiet guys, a little on the shy side.

I’ve Been Tagged

Matt Bailey tagged me over the weekend (here’s Matt’s response to being tagged), along with a not so subtle hint that I should get off my butt and do more posting. Thanks Matt. Jonathon Mendez gave me a similar message at SES in Chicago.

Here’s how the game seems to work. You tag 5 bloggers and they all have to share 5 things that people don’t know about them. I’m not really that deep, so I don’t know if there are any secrets hidden down there..but I’ll do my best.

1. I worked as a radio copywriter right out of college, doing stints at stations in Edmonton, Alberta, Regina, Saskatchewan, Fort McMurray, Alberta and Kelowna, BC. Yes, it was the not so famous tour of the lesser known hot spots in Western Canada. Here are the notable memories from each location. Edmonton is notable (or notorious?) primarily for its mall which is still the largest one in the world. If you had spent a winter in Edmonton, you’d understand the logic. My memories, however, are more around seeing the Oilers play through the seasons of 80 – 83, while they had Gretzky, Kurri, Messier, Coffey, Glenn Anderson and Andy Moog. It was perhaps the best team to ever hit the ice, and I wasn’t even a big hockey fan. I moved to Regina in the winter for my first real job in radio, and thought if I could hang on til summer, it would get better. I was wrong. We had a plague of grasshoppers that literally covered the streets and sidewalks. Fort McMurray, in northern Alberta, is the single largest known deposit of oil in the world. This one deposit has more oil than Saudi Arabia. So you’d better be nice to us Canadians! And finally, Kelowna, my current home. It’s a beautiful place, which could be why I’ve been here almost 20 years now.

2. I won the Canadian Radio Industry’s Equivalent of a Clio, a Crystal, back in 1991, for a commercial I wrote. It had no sound effects, other than a crinkled chip bag, and I did one of the voices. You have to understand that I was almost never allowed to do voice over work for any station and if you’ve heard me speak, you’ll probably understand why. I think we can agree that it’s usually what I talk about, not the quality of my voice, that lands me any speaking gigs that come my way. James Earl Jones has nothing to worry about.

3. I have no university degree. I do have a diploma in Radio and Television Arts from the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, but there are no letters after my name. I’m one of the very few members of the Enquiro team without a degree. Somewhat ironic, because I know that there’s at least one academic paper that I’ve co-authored now.

4. I was raised in possibly the least liberal town in Canada. Sundre, where I grew up, is in the heart of rural, bible belt Alberta. And Alberta, for those who know the Canadian political landscape, is hardly a hot bed of liberal ideology. This is farming, ranching, oil country. Just to mix things up a bit, it was originally settled by Norwegians, so to put it in US analogous terms, if you took Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon and moved it to Texas by way of Montana, you’d probably have Sundre.

5. You probably wouldn’t guess it to look at me (although I have lost 50 pounds in the last year..another little known fact), but I love road biking. I tend to head off for solo rides, I’m not really into racing or riding with groups. I’m trying to recruit someone interested in doing a 3 or 4 day road trip in the next year or two. Typically an average ride for me is 60 to 100 K’s (about 40 to 60 miles). Next year my goal is to do a one day 100 mile ride.

That’s it. Now..who do I tag? Well, it may be a easy way out, but we have 5 bloggers right here in Enquiro, so I think I’ll tag Manoj Jasra, Marina Garrison, Cory Bates, Jody Nimetz and Rick Tobin.

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.

Thou Shalt Not Google (unless it’s on Google)

First published November 2, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

goo-gle: Function: transitive verb: to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web
–Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Of all the things that Google’s lawyers have in their basket, apparently stamping out inappropriate use of “Google” as a verb is right on top of the stack. It apparently irks them no end.Now, I can really sympathize here. It’s a little known fact that my last name has actually suffered the same fate as Google. In Japan, of all places, Hotchkiss has become the generic name for the office stapler. Each time a worker lost in the maze of cubicles at Mitsui and Co. says, “Pass me the Hotchkiss” I die a little inside. I kid you not! Check out Wikipedia.Mind your Ps and GooglesNow, according to a post on Google’s official blog, it’s not the fact that we Google on Google that causes the Google legal department to have hissy fits. It’s if we try Googling on Yahoo and MSN. It can’t be done. Not all tissue papers are Kleenex, not all copy machines are Xeroxes. To quote the post:

You can only “Google” on the Google search engine. If you absolutely must use one of our competitors, please feel free to “search” on Yahoo or any other search engine.

Hmmm..people are using the word “Google” to refer to Google’s competitors, and it’s Google that’s upset? Unless I’m missing something here, shouldn’t it be Yahoo and MSN that should be miffed?

I Google, therefore I am…

The inclusion of Google in the English lexicon is “faintly unsettling,” according to the folks at Google. They fear that Google will lose its identity as a trademark once it slips into common usage. They explain:

A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device that identifies a particular company’s products or services. Google is a trademark identifying Google Inc. and our search technology and services. While we’re pleased that so many people think of us when they think of searching the web, let’s face it, we do have a brand to protect, so we’d like to make clear that you should please only use “Google” when you’re actually referring to Google Inc. and our services.

Now, I know that Google has way too much money, and they have a team of very bright 12-year-old lawyers (or at least, they look 12) trying to reinvent the law. But in this case, I would suggest slipping down to the Google cafeteria for a double decaf low fat cappuccino and relaxing. There are better windmills to tilt at than this one.

Once again, who’s in control?

The irony here is that the very entity that has probably done more than any other to put control in the hands of the consumer is now fretting because consumers are exercising that control. We associate search with Google. We endorse the brand by using it as a verb. It’s just this critical mass that makes Google such a formidable competitor in the highly promising search market. Frankly, it’s not the fact that their brands became generic terms that hurt many of the companies that Google uses as examples. It’s because the companies became complacent and let the competition catch up, losing the distinction that their brand once afforded them. The consumers didn’t take the brand away from the company, the company surrendered the brand to the competition.

In the corporate culture that says “don’t be evil,” apparently improper use of “Googling” is now defined as evil. Just to make it clear, Merriam-Webster defines evil as “morally reprehensible.”.  Perhaps someday “google” will also mean “to spend one’s time unproductively fighting frivolous legal battles.” At this point, it’s a toss-up with “disney.”

A final word to Google’s legal team: As you’re putting together those multi-page lawsuits, go ahead and feel free to use the Hotchkiss. I don’t mind.

Thoughts on 18 Months with SEMPO

I’m noticing my blogging will power is directly related to my current slate of activities. October has been a busy month for me, with travel and some different initiatives here at Enquiro. As much as I try to schedule some time to post some thoughts, I keep finding things getting pushed back. I’ve got a file crammed with stuff to review to see if it’s comment worthy.

A quick update is certainly in order though. Two weeks ago I was at SEMPO’s planning retreat in New York. I have to give a shout out to Dana Todd and the BOD both last year and this year. The organization is making substantial progress on many fronts and has come a long way. Now, this is to take nothing away from the original board. You know, I was one of the ones that criticized some of those early decisions. As I’ve said in numerous interviews, I don’t think the story of SEMPO is that of revolution but rather evolution. Barbara Coll and the original board got the job done. They got SEMPO off the ground, they build some incredibly valuable relationships and they laid the foundation for the organization as it currently sits. You don’t get an industry organization off the ground in a climate as charged as the search marketing industry without rubbing some people the wrong way. And sure, there were strong personalities on both sides..that’s what makes this business fun. But you know what? There are many who would have thrown in the towel and said this ain’t worth it. Barbara stuck in and handed over a fully functional organization to last year’s board. It was an organization that was still defining itself, but it was well off the ground. I for one don’t think Barb ever got the recognition she deserved for that.

The other part of the SEMPO story is that we all had different expectations for what the organization would become. Some wanted it to police SEO’s, some wanted it to be a lead generator, and some just wanted parties and free booze. As the organization has evolved, those disconnects in expectations have largely corrected themselves. Where the disconnect was too great, members have gone their own way. But the majority of members have learned, as has SEMPO, and we’ve found middle ground. Do we have it perfect yet? Not by a long shot, but we’re trying to do more things right than wrong.

SEMPO is finding its voice and building its franchise. Our State of the Market Survey is in its third year as we’re working towards launch. We had full participation of the major publishers this year, as they recognize that this has become the definitive year over year snapshot of the industry. We’re launched a scaled back version for the European Market. We’re working with Fair Isaac on the Click Fraud issue, again with the participation of the major engines, to try to get a fair estimation of the scope of the problem through an objective third party. And, perhaps most importantly, we’re forging strong relationships between the engines and search marketers, and to attempt to democratize those relationships, opening up the communication lines with smaller shops who may not be handling the budgets to give them a guaranteed ear with the Googles, MSN’s and Yahoo’s of the world.

There will always be the inevitable comments about SEMPO board members doing this for their own benefit. Having been on both sides of this comment, I have my own perspective, which I’m happy to share. There is certainly no monetary reward, and I put in about 20 to 30 hours a month on various SEMPO tasks as the Chair and as the Research Chair. Do I get some increased exposure? Probably, but to be honest, I get a lot more exposure through Enquiro’s research initiatives (something I have to start devoting more time too). The biggest benefit I receive from being on the board is the networking opportunities. Participation with SEMPO has allowed me to meet some interesting people, both at the engines and at other agencies.

A year and a half ago, I was one of the ones bitching in the hallways of SES. I made a choice: either keep bitching from the outside, or jump in and get involved. In the past 18 months, I was able to accomplish some of the things I wanted to do, but I also got the chance to have my perspective changed a bit. These are good, smart people, doing good, smart things. They’re making a difference in this industry.

Okay..off my soap box. I’m going to turn comments on for a little bit. Feel free to let me know your perspective on SEMPO..good or bad. You have the Chair’s ear.