Category Archives: Personal

A collection of personal thoughts and stories

Bill Wise Leaving Did-It

Apparently Bill Wise and the Did-It Frog have had a difference of opinion.  The story this morning says that Bill Wise will be stepping down from the CEO position at Did-It but future plans haven’t been announced.  The split seems to be amicable at this point, but the two spokespeople are Bill and Kevin Lee and they’re both very diplomatic gentleman.

The split seems to come about from differing views of where Did-It should go in the future.  This is the challenge facing many SEMs and SEOs now as the industry continues to evolve at breakneck pace.  Of course, Did-It is also at the eye of the storm regarding the SEO/SEM controversy.

I had the privilege of being able to speak on a panel once with Bill Wise and was impressed with his clear view of search marketing strategy and the industry in general.  He’ll do very well no matter where he ends up. Good luck Bill.

Brain Numbing Ideas on a Friday Afternoon

I can’t help but get the feeling that when we look at online marketing, we tend to get blinded by the technology and lose sight of what’s really important: how it affects people.

Right now there’s a flurry of attention surrounding YouTube because of copyright issues and other factors.  And YouTube isn’t alone in this.  The majority of things I did in my in box focus on technology.  What will be the next killer platform?  I see mobile search, I see online video, I see social networking. It’s hard to keep your finger on the pulse of what’s really important.  I find it useful to step back a little bit and see how these things affect real people: people not like you and I, who are caught up in the promise of technology, but people like my daughter’s principal, people like my mom, people like my next-door neighbor.  People who are wary about technology and who will only embrace it if it makes their life better in some way.  This is not to discount the importance of technology, because it truly has turned our lives inside out in the last decade.  But there’s a distillation, a time when we have to get comfortable with change.  The dotcom boom and bust was not because of the lack of technology or its inadequacy.  To technology all things are possible.  But to people, it’s all about what’s in it for me.  And that, ultimately, is the success factor that has to be considered in all this.

So, is YouTube hot?  Is online video hot?  Is social networking hot?  All these things are, but not because of the technology that lies beneath, but rather because of the social change that they empower.  Consider online video for example.  A couple of items in my in box talked about how, at this point, we won’t watch television online.  Even the person at Google who was responsible for online video admitted that at this point, even with Google’s tremendous resources, online video at the quality that we’ve come to expect is not a scalable proposition. 

We interact with video in a far different way online.  For example, YouTube is all about the viral spiral.  It’s all about that cute little two to three minutes of video: something that is either funny or outrageous or awful.  There’s no tremendous requirement for engagement for this.  YouTube is the repository for a million different “in” jokes.  It’s the basket where we collect what titillates the fancy of our collective consciousness at any given time.  It gives us an easy reference point so we can take what interests us and forward it to others if we think they are interested as well.  We’re not ready to watch a one or two hour documentary on the web, simply because we’re not used to interacting with our computer screen in that way.  Our computers are things we do things on, not things we watch passively.  A commitment of two to three minutes to watch a little video screen is fine, but we don’t look to the Web for passive entertainment.  That’s not to say we won’t, some day, as connectivity and convergence moves our channels beyond the current paradigm and as we evolve and learn to interact with them in new ways. 

And it’s there that we start to pick apart at what truly makes technology, at least as far as it’s manifested on the web, really interesting.  It stitches together the fabric of our society.  It’s a synapse that allows our collective brain to fire more effectively than it did before. Communications can zing back and forth between us at a far faster rate.  What we find interesting, what we find intriguing, what we find funny, what we find painful to watch is now available for anyone to see.  It’s cataloged and categorized for our convenience.  It occupies a finite space in the virtual world that we can point to and say, “Look at this, it impacted me and I think it will impact you to.”

I recently had the opportunity to watch Dr. Gary Flake from Microsoft talk.  He started his presentation with the claim that the information technology revolution that we’re currently in will be more significant, as far as the change factor for our society, than anything that has gone before.  More important than the Industrial Revolution, more important than the invention of the printing press, more important than television.  To me the real power of the Internet is that it’s rewiring our society in ways we could never dream of and in ways we never anticipated.  To focus on the wiring or the technology of the Web is to take the mechanic’s view of the world.  To a mechanic or a car buff, a vehicle is a wonderful thing because of the internal combustion engine, because of the horsepower and how fast it can go from zero to 60.  They focus on what it is.  But when you look at how the automobile has affected our society, it’s not about what it is, it’s about what it does.  The automobile brought the world closer.  It allowed us to travel and see new things.  It allowed us to live in one place and work in another.  The macro change that the automobile engendered had nothing to do with how an internal combustion engine worked, it came from moving people from one place to another quickly, cheaply and efficiently.  It mobilized our society in a way that never existed before.

Likewise, the Web is not powerful because of Web 2.0 technologies, or speed of connection, or the ability to host video.  It’s important because it connects us in new and different ways.  It moves power from where it was stuck before into new hands.  It breaks down existing power structures and distributes that power amongst all of us.  It puts the individual in control and allows one individual to connect with another, freely and without paying a poll to the previous power brokers.

The really interesting thing about the Internet is the underlying social current, the groundswell of change that is redefining us and how we live together.  These fundamental factors are exerting a tremendous force within our day-to-day lives.  They’re precipitating change so fast that we haven’t been able to step back and see what the full impact to us will be.  We can’t see the trickle down effect of the things that are happening to us today.  The Internet is changing the very DNA of our society, and we are unable to take a long-term view of what those current mutations will mean for us.  One only has to look at the generational difference between the 45-year-old parent, myself, and my 13-year-old daughter, the first generation that has been fully immersed in online technology.  She interacts with the world in a completely different way.  She searches for information in a different way and evaluates it differently.  She takes these things for granted because she’s never known any other way.  What happens when this entire generation emerges as the shapers of our society?  What happens when they take control from us, with their innate understanding of what the Web makes possible, and redefine everything?

Here are three things that I believe are the foundations of social change being pushed by the Internet:

Access to Information

The amount of information we currently have access to is mind-boggling.  Never has so much raw information lived so close to us.  You can now think about any given topic in the universe of our consciousness, and that information exists just a mouse click away.  And, as the saying goes, information is power.  It empowers each one of us to take a more active role in our destiny.  This information has completely changed how people buy things.  It’s completely changed the relationship between vendors and buyers.  More and more, we go direct to the source, as educated, knowledgeable buyers who know exactly what we want and what we will pay for it.  The challenge on the Internet is that not all information is created equal.  There’s good information and there’s bad information.  However, we are becoming extremely good at being able to differentiate between the two.  We’re becoming amazingly adept at being able to recognize authenticity and we can sniff out BS.  In picking through the multiple threads of information that are available to us out there, we can recognize the scent of truth and quickly discount hype, spin and sheer lies. 

Again, as we begin to recognize the shifting of power to the consumer, the full impact has not shaken out yet.  When we can buy anything online, quickly, easily and confidently, will what will that mean for the entire bricks and mortar retail world out there?  Will there be shopping malls in 20 years?  Will there be stores at all?  Will we buy directly from the manufacturers, cutting out distributors, wholesalers and retailers?  Or will distribution of products to the world of consumers lie in the hands of a few mega, long tail retailers such as Amazon?  I certainly don’t know, the future is far too murky to be able to peer down this path.  And I don’t think it’s important to be able to predict the future, but I do think it’s vitally important to consider the quantum change that is likely in the future.

Searchability

As the amount of information available to us continues to multiply exponentially, the ability to connect with the right information at the right time becomes more and more important.  I’ve always maintained that search is the fundamental foundation of everything that will transpire online.  It is the essential connector between our intent, and the content we’re looking for.  But more than just the connector, the sheer functionality of search, both as it is today and as it will be in the future, creates another catalyst for change in our society. 

We are becoming used to having the answers just a few mouse clicks away.  We are becoming a society of instant gratification.  In the past, we accepted that we couldn’t know everything.  In divvying up the world’s knowledge, some of us were experts in one area and some of us were experts in another.  Some of us were experts in nothing.  But we held no pretensions that we would become experts in areas where we had no previous experience.  There was no path to follow so there was no reason to start the journey. 

But today, you can become an instant expert in anything, depending on how you define the scope of that expertise.  Within 30 seconds I can tell you every movie that Uma Thurman ever appeared in.  I can look up a medical condition and have access to the same information, likely more information, that a doctor 20 years ago would have access to, based on his own experience, education and reference materials.  But again, what is the impact of this?  Does having access to the information about a medical condition makes me an expert in treating that condition?  I have the information but I have no context in which to apply it.  As we gain access to information, will we use that information wisely without the experience and domain expertise that used to accompany that information?

And how will instant access to information alter education in the future?  I remember hearing an observation that if we had a modern day Rip van Winkle, who had gone to sleep 20 years ago and suddenly woke up today, the one place he would feel most comfortable would be in the elementary classroom.  While the outside world is changed dramatically in the past 20 years, the classroom in which your child spends the majority of their day has changed very little.  When I help my children do their homework, there isn’t much difference between the textbooks and the worksheets I see today and the ones I saw 30 years ago.  I recently had to explain to my daughter’s principal the difference between a Web browser and a search engine.  The classroom is like a backwater eddy in the rushing torrent of technological change that typifies the rest of the world.  And it’s not just elementary school where this is an issue.  We often speak to students who are currently going through marketing programs at the university level and are always aghast at how little they’re learning about this new world of marketing and the reality of consumer empowerment.  They’re learning the rules of a game that changed at least a decade ago.

So to bring the point home once more, what will the organization of the world’s information mean for our society?  As search gets better at connecting us to the content that we are looking for, what are the ripple effects for us?  Will our children’s and grandchildren’s brains be wired in a different way than ours are?  Will they assimilate information differently? Will they research differently? Will they structure their logic in a different way?

Creation of Ideological Communities

The Web has redefined our idea of community.  It used to be the communities were defined along geographic lines.  You need a physical proximity to people in order to create a community because physical proximity was a prerequisite for communication.  Communities could exist if there was two way communication.  That’s the reason why community and communication are extensions of the same root word and concept. 

Perhaps the most powerful change introduced by the Internet has been the enabling of real, two way communication between people where physical proximity was not required.  Consider the chain of events that typifies online interaction.  You become aware of someone who shares an ideological interest, usually through stumbling upon them somewhere online.  You initiate communication.  Depending on the scope of your shared interest, you may create the core of the community by inviting others into it.  The Internet gives us the platform that allows for the creation of ideological communities.  We see this happen all the time on properties such as YouTube or MySpace.  Ideological communities are created on the fly, flourish for awhile, and then fade away as interest in the idea that engendered them also fades away.  The Internet, at any given point in time, is a snapshot of thousands, or perhaps millions, of these ad hoc ideological communities.  They form, they flourish and then they disappear.

But in our real world there was physicality to the concept of community.  The way our world is built, our political boundaries, come from physical considerations.  There are distinct geographic boundaries like mountain ranges, oceans and rivers that, in the past, prevented the flow of people across them.  Because of the restricted ability to move, people spent long enough together to share ideals and create communities.  As time moved on these communities became larger and larger.  Transportation allowed us to share common ideals over a greater expanse and nations became possible.  The more efficient the transportation, the larger the nation became.  But throughout this entire process, the concept of geography defined communities and defined nations.  Our entire existing political structure was built around this geographic foundation.

With the Internet, geography ceases to have meaning.  It’s now a virtual world, and I can feel closer to someone in China with whom I share one particularly strong mutually held belief then I might with my next-door neighbor.  More fundamentally, I can belong to several different communities at the same time.  Again, the restraint of the physical world usually restricted the number of interests we had that we could share with those immediately around us.  Our sphere of interest as an individual was somewhat dictated by the critical mass each of those interest areas had within the community in which we lived.  If we thought particularly strongly about one interest we could physically move to a community where there were more people who shared that interest.  So we tended to move to communities that felt “right” ideologically as well as physically.  But with the Internet, does that need for ideological “sameness” where we live eventually disappear?  Does our physical need for community decrease as our ideological need for community is fulfilled through the Internet?

And, if this physical definition of community begins to erode, what does that do for the concept of nationhood and all the things that come along with it? Increasingly, communication and commerce travel along lines not defined by geography.  The idea of a nation, as we currently understand it, is inextricably bound to the realities of geography.  Politics, trade, laws and defense are all concepts that are rooted in thinking developed over the past several centuries.  In the past 30 years we’ve seen the erosion of the concept of nationhood through the creation of common markets and free trade areas.  The very breakdown of the Soviet Union comes from the inability to isolate the population from the concepts which flourished in the free world.  And that was before the Internet ever became a factor.  What happens when we take this movement, already afoot, and add the tremendous catalyst that is the Internet?

It’s in these macro trends that the true power of the Internet can be seen.  It’s not about an individual technology or even the cumulative power of all the technology.  It’s about how the sum of all that affects us as individuals, how we interact with the world around us and how we connect with other individuals.  The seeds have been planted, we can’t turn back, and we can’t foresee what will be.  The world is evolving and truly becoming a global community.  We are entering a time when change will accelerate faster than our society may be able to keep up.  There will be costs, certainly, but my hope and belief is that the rewards will far outweigh the costs.

The Goodman – Hotchkiss Smack Down

Okay…maybe it’s nowhere near the Pasternack vs the Rest of the SEO World Debate that’s currently going on (which is apparently now even spawning it’s own T-shirt), but Andrew Goodman took exception to my recent SearchInsider column, where I also ponder the future of SEM/SEO.

To save you a ton of reading, I’ll summarize the salient points of both.

My take:

SEM shops, and in particular, SEO shops, have been so tactical and have developed such a specialized set of skills that it will be difficult for us to step back and look at the bigger picture necessary to guide us in the next evolution of search into a more personalized channel. Further, as the current reality of universal search results pages gives way to personalized results, the market value of this highly developed skill set, largely based on the current paradigm of optimizing to gain rank, will begin to lose value to potential acquirers as rank ceases to have any meaning. This will create a shakeout in the industry as some of the best practitioners become employees with large companies and others can’t keep up with the new evolution of search.

Andrew’s take:

I missed some factors, in particular the fact that you can’t predict financial fads and roll ups and acquisition are often driven more by buzz from Wall Street than logic, and that acquisition is often driven by the target’s client list and expertise in a skill set that the buyer doesn’t currently have. Further, Goodman feels that contrary to my point, SEM’s are actually pretty strategic in their execution of campaigns and that our front line approach in customer acquisition is giving us exactly the skills needed to market in the new online reality. He goes on at some length about how the majority of the agency world is drastically out of touch with this new reality.

Of course, both Andrew and I being Canadians, we’re probably both way too polite and pragmatic to create much of a stir. Note the carefully worded way Andrew threw down the gauntlet:

Gord Hotchkiss argues that SEM firms aren’t getting acquired for large sums mainly because they’re too tactical and don’t have skills that help them work on segmenting and customer profiling. I tend to think that the picture is more complex. Or maybe, it’s actually simpler. Either way, Gord’s assessment of current reality is correct, but his analysis is wrong.

It’s kind of like Mac n Tosh, the really polite Warner Brothers gophers, in the WWF. “You hit me first.” “No, I insist, you take the first swing.” “No, no, that would be rude, please put me in a pile driver.”

But I do encourage you to read Andrew’s post, as I think it definitely adds to the perspective. And here, I’d like to dive a little deeper on some of the points Andrew brings up:

I happen to think search marketing is a fine training ground for the strategic mind. Of course, no small consulting firm is given the keys to the entire marketing strategy for a large client, but discounting for size, the influence of the search marketer is impressive. Look at all the data clients already let search marketers work with! While expensive, ponderous segmentation and market research exercises are not the typical MO of the searchie, that’s often because these don’t translate very well to the particular campaigns they’re asked to work on.

Well, in most instances, this usually contradicts the point Andrew is making. While I agree that we often get access to a lot of data, it’s usually in support of the crushing load of tactical work that has to be done in search. We need to dive into conversion data, site stats and a mound of other data to tweak and optimize the campaign. And it’s this deep dive into the data that often keeps us from seeing the big picture. And yes, segmentation and market profiling are ponderous work, and that is tactical, but it’s the ability to take the results and apply them strategically that truly sets apart great marketing. I agree with Andrew that there’s a real danger of misuse of profiling, and it’s horrendously abused in the traditional agency world to justify expensive sponsorships that are more about boondoggles and perks for agency execs than it is about effectively reaching target consumers. But to me, the biggest thing missing in Search is the who and the why. We know where and we guess at what, based on a series of tests.

Here’s how it usually works. We test for best position. We come up with messaging and test for effectiveness, often based on a set of metrics that are end of funnel targeted, because that’s the best we can do right now. There’s testing, testing and more testing.  Andrew makes this point as well:

(Testing is) certainly something search marketers are uniquely skilled to do. In paid search, we learned “direct marketing analysis on steroids,” not from any book, but from the ground up. Now we’re busy writing the book.

This brings us to a point that came up during our panel at the recent Microsoft Summit. One member of the audience equated search to direct marketing. This is a common comparison, but it points to the very reason most SEM’s are too myopically focused. Here’s one definition I found for direct marketing:

Direct marketing is a type of advertising campaign that seeks to elicit an action (such as an order, a visit to a store or Web site, or a request for further information) from a selected group of consumers in response to a communication from the marketer.

From a marketer’s perspective, this pretty much sums up search. It’s what we all want people to do through search. But, and here’s the thing, it’s often not what the user wants to do. The point at which search is used and the point at which the consumer is ready to take the action could be seperated by days, weeks or even months. Here’s another symptom of our short sightedness. When we measure actions, we show a strong bias towards the purchase end of the funnel. Most marketers either don’t or can’t measure promising activity earlier in the funnel. It’s often not our fault, because the leap from measuring end of funnel activity to full funnel activity is huge, and largely impossible. It requires a sophistication of reporting that’s beyond the ability of any single platform. So we tend to focus on what we can measure. And this leads to an increase in short sightedness.

What we need is the who and why. We need to look at presentation of our messaging through the eyes of the target. We need to understand intent, and deliver on it. That dramatically reduces testing cycles. When you learn to do that, your strategy defines itself. Contrary to Andrew’s point…

Customer profiling? I think it’s useful, but let’s not get too cute.
(By the way, I think Andrew’s Canadianism is showing here. Most Search Marketers I know would call it BS)

…knowing your customer isn’t cute, it’s critical. Up to know, search has been able to effectively deliver leads without this understanding. That’s a testament to the power of search as a channel. But those days are rapidly ending. My point is this view is now essential to reach customers in a more personalized search reality, or if it’s not essential now, it will be very very soon. And knowing your customer means research, profiling and creating paradigm shifting frameworks, such as personas. And I don’t mean in the way traditionally abused by agencies, but in highly effective ways pioneered by product designers and employed by Future Now, who Andrew refers to.

A few totally awesome data analysts in these firms – and a handful of independent analysts – are doing exactly the right things, while most everyone else in the agency infrastructure is not empowered to act on the power of the data (or put less politely, they’re just pretending). Agency culture is still dominated by the power of “creative,” and subjective judgments of “spots.”

Okay, here’s one point in where Andrew and I are in complete agreement. Agencies don’t get it, and although some bright individuals within the agency structure do, they’re hamstrung and stiffled by crushing inertia and old thinking. Andrew seems to think I implied agencies wouldn’t buy because they knew how to do it. That wasn’t my point. It was agencies won’t buy because they think they know how to do it. And the distinction is important. In fact, somewhere on my desktop is a half finished blog post where I looked at why this happens, but I shelved it because I thought it might be too “impolite”. Maybe it’s time I dug it up and finished it. But in the meantime, everything that Andrew points out as being wrong in the agency space I agree with totally.

From the ashes of all of this rises search. Which, though highly tactical, is a great training ground for strategic minds like Joe Morin, who is now CEO of StoryBids, a startup that offers an auction system for product placement.

Again, in trying to point out a difference in opinion, Andrew actually helps reinforce a point I was making. Joe is a good friend and a great example of the handful of survivors who are evolving into the new reality. I mentioned that the challenge for SEOs in particular (which was Joe’s background, along with being a private investigator) was in being willing to draw back from their current view and skill set and to reinvent themselves to find a niche in the rapidly evolving online ecosystem. Joe is a master of this and acts as a great example for the industry. Andrew also mentioned he has some skin in a new game, and as one of the smarter people in search, he’ll evolve quite nicely as well. And I think in the word “evolve” we come to the crux of this. Perhaps the best way is to sum up with the following comparisons

Traditional Agencies = Dinosaurs
SEMs/SEOs Unwilling to Change = Mastadons
SEMs/SEOs Embracing Change = Primates

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.