January 2007 Entries

 A new study from BIGResearch has shown that Word of Mouth continues to be the most influential factor in consumer decisions.

There's nothing too earth shaking about this. But consider how Word of Mouth is defined today.

The Web has taken Word of Mouth, which used to be restricted by geographic realities, and exploded it outwards in all directions. Even the very phrase implies a face to face conversation, which by necessity restricts how quickly word of mouth could spread. But now, word of mouth encompasses consumer generated media, which means that stated opinions can spread much further and faster than ever before.

Perhaps the easiest way to judge the implications of the web effect on word of mouth is to strip it back to it's essential meaning, and then work outwards again.

Word of mouth implies that you're getting an opinion from someone who:

1. is familiar with a product or service through personal experience; and,
2. can be objective because they have no vested interested in whether you buy the item or service in question.

If it meets these two criteria, word of mouth has the ring of authenticity, which is rapidly becoming a valuable commodity on the Web. Historically, word of mouth came primarily from friends and family, so our circle of potential influencers was limited to a few hundred people at the most. We received our word of mouth recommendations in two ways. Either the person giving the opinion had become an evangelist for the product and was offering their opinion whether it was asked for or not, or we would seek out someone we knew who we trusted and who we knew to have previous experience with a product or service. For me, the second type of word of mouth was generally a little more influential. In either case, the reach was restricted, because there was no way for the average person to expand their communication network beyond their normal contacts.

If you took an evangelist and tried to expand their coverage, the value of the message eroded. If the vendor facilitated this, the authenticity decreased and the message became a testimonial. Influential, yes, but not truly word of mouth. Or if the person happened to have a forum that allowed them the spread the word farther, i.e. a newspaper columnist or a TV personality, the authenticity was lost and it became another celebrity endorsement. Again, influential, but missing the grass roots power of true word of mouth.

For word of mouth to be truly powerful, it has to live close to the ground, come from real people, and not have the faintest whiff of commercialism about it.

Now, look at what the empowerment and connectivity of the Web has enabled. If a person chooses to be an evangelist, they still sacrifice authenticity, even if distribution of the message is done digitally. But search allows consumers to connect to real people, just like you and I, who have shared their opinion on something with us online. This maintains authenticity, and opens up the new power of word of mouth.

Think of what sites like TripAdvisor has done for travel. If you were going to go to Florence and you wanted to find a hotel, what would be the odds 15 years ago of finding someone in your social circle that would have the personal experience necessary to give you the advice you were looking for? Probably slim. But now, through search, you can find a number of people who have all stayed at hotels in Florence and have shared their experiences, both good and bad. TripAdvisor uses this collective "word of mouth" to rate the hotels. It's tremendously influential and it's available to all of us.

This tying together of consumers into ad hoc ideological communities around a product or service is becoming tremendously powerful, and is completely redefining the principles of marketing and branding.

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

Kevin runs a great column on a topic I explored awhile ago in SearchInsider: are search engines leeching value from the web? Kevin approaches it from a slightly different angle than I did, but the conclusion was similar. Vendors are beginning to resent having to pay for every search generated touchpoint with a consumer. Kevin's point, which I share, is: Get Used to It!

Here's the 10 second summary of the idea, but please take some time to read the column. Consumers continue to turn to search to connect with an online vendor, even after the initial introduction. The vendor has to either maintain a prominent position in the sponsored ads, or, in some cases, pay an affiliate who is maintaining a high organic position (this reference is somewhat ironic, coming from the company that says SEO is simple enough that these affiliate sites should be cut out of the ecosystem). The vendor resents having to pay this recurring toll every time the customer visits them.

Having to invest to maintain share of wallet with a consumer is nothing new. It's just that the new power of online and search in part makes this investment more focused than it's ever been before. It used to be that maintaining enough top of mind to ensure a continuing connection with a customer was spread out over a number of marketing channels. Somehow, advertisers would accept this. But now, with the focused use of search to navigate the web, including return visits to a particular site, the cost is being concentrated in one channel. If anything, this introduces efficiency into the marketplace and could potentially save the marketer money, but all they see is a growing cost they have to pay to one channel to keep customers they thought they had already won. The missing piece here is solid data about the shift of influence from more traditional channels to the new search one. The marketer doesn't know whether they have to maintain all the previous marketing activity, or can they confidently begin moving budget to the new one, namely search.

Read Kevin's column, and then take a look back at my view. It's a thoughtful look at an interesting shift in marketing dynamics and is a refreshing change from some of the other opinions currently coming out of Did-It.

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.

David Pasternack of Did-It is decidedly unrepentant in his campaign against SEO. He's at it again in a Q&A on DM News. At this point, it's beyond intellectual debate and seems to be all about generating a storm of activity, with himself at the center. As Danny Sullivan said  "It's all getting pretty tired". David continues to insist that you would be a fool not to bring SEO in-house, as anybody can do it, but apparently with paid search (Did-It's business model) the opposite is true, as only a fool would try to manage their paid search in house.

You know, I was one of the ones that did see some logic (albeit a little convoluted) in David's original column, and Kevin Lee's subsequent columns to try to further clarify. There are two sides (or more) to every argument and I usually try the view from both sides before commenting. But I have to say Pasternack is going beyond the reasonable here. The fact is, with many of our clients, it's organic search they seek consulting help with and it's paid search that they keep in house. I frankly don't see a big difference in the level of sophistication required in both channels. In fact, I would say there are more dimensions, and more potential traps, on the organic side. Here are some other reasons why you're most definitely not a fool if you're looking for a partner on the SEO side:

SEO Touches Everything

Sometime ago, I wrote a column about why an effective SEO campaign is so difficult to launch within an organization. The biggest reason is that an effective SEO campaign touches many aspects of the business. It's embedded in content, which generally involves at least marketing and often includes legal, management, product groups and virtually every aspect of the business. And buy in of the IT department is absolutely essential. SEO doesn't live it one place. To be effective it has to overarch everything. A partner can help make that happen. Talk to many in-house SEO practitioners and they'll tell you one of their biggest challenges was selling SEO internally. It's one of the most common immediate pains we solve when we partner with a company.

Nobody is Helping You With SEO

Right now I'm at a Summit hosted at Microsoft aimed at helping people use AdCenter more effectively. Microsoft is most decidedly not telling us how to rank higher on Live Search's algorithmic results. Neither is Google or Yahoo! Other than the rather thin Webmaster Guidelines (according to Pasternack, all you need to know), there's very little effort on the part of the search engines to help you understand algorithmic ranking. Why should they? They don't make money from it. So you have to cobble your information together from various forums and blogs. There's no official answer source for algorithmic problems. That's why Search Engine Strategies attendance continues to grow. It's also why SEMPO is introducing a organic optimization training program.

Nobody is Investing in Making SEO Easier

According to Pasternack, Did-It has "killer technology". They do have a proprietary bid management tool, and it's okay, as are many others. I'm not sure I'd call it "killer technology", as that implies that it kills the competition. That's just not true. Maestro is just another flavor of  bid management, with some cool features, and some noticeable gaps when you compare it to some of their competitors. But the fact is, there's a market for building tools to help manage PPC campaigns. Driving this are the engines themselves, who are dedicated to taking the pain out of managing paid search, and are likely the ones who will be introducing "killer technology", as there's a strong economic win in it for them and they have substantially more resources than a company like Did-It. The engines are not dedicated in the same way to making SEO easier. The landscape is too messy and the division between white and black is too vague. It's more open than it used to be, with the efforts of a few individuals (i.e. Matt Cutts, Jeremy Zawodny, Tim Mayer) and the odd tool (i.e. Google's Webmaster Tools) but it's nowhere near the scale of development on the paid side, and it never will be.

The Damage Can Be Long Lasting

If you screw up on a PPC campaign, it can be turned off while you figure out what went wrong. It can cost some lost budget, but that's about it. Screw up on your SEO and it can take months, or even years, to fix the damage. And every day, you're missing out on traffic that you'll never get back. It's all about risk, and there's substantially more risk on the SEO side. Ask anyone who inadvertently got their URL banned.

SEO is More Difficult to Manage and Control

Paid search keeps you in control. You can measure campaign performance, adjust bids, turn off individual keyphrases or entire campaigns and introduce robust testing frameworks. While this increases the complexity of campaign management, it does leave you in control. With organic optimization, you have to throw your best guess against the algorithm and hope for the best. You surrender control the minute your site is spidered.

The Returns Can Blow PPC Away

Frankly, you've be a fool not to fully leverage the potential of organic, because if you do it right, your returns will blow anything you're getting from the paid side out of the water. There's a lot at stake, and the returns can continue for a long time, whereas the best managed paid campaign's benefits end the minute you turn off the tap on the funds. Why wouldn't you want to make sure you're exploring every opportunity available to gain better organic visibility?

More of Pasternack's Wisdom

In the interview, Pasternack made a number of observations that I wanted to deal with individually:

Everybody’s not angry: only a small percentage of readers with an inferiority complex who happen to call themselves SEO experts

Apparently, Pasternack's brush only paints in black and white, which probably simplifies his world greatly. His one sided comments rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, myself included. I'd argue whether I'm an SEO expert, and I don't believe I have an inferiority complex. I do travel in those circles however and talk to a wide number of people and generally find that we're developing a similar attitude to Mr. Pasternack's credibility in the industry.

I wonder what percentage of Danny’s (Sullivan) show attendees are there to find the “magic SEO elixir.” I would guess a very high percentage. I suppose we all have to cater to our audience.

I happened to be sitting next to Danny as he first read the above quote. "Harrump" would be the diplomatic term for the response. The fact is, SES attendees are not looking for the magic SEO elixir. They're looking for answers because there's precious few places they can find them. They're generally not going to get them through the engines, at least through the official channels. Organic optimization can be complicated, depending on the challenges present. Ironically, many of the attendees are the very same in-house tacticians that Pasternack says should be more than adequate to optimize the site. In many cases, they're lost and desperately looking for guidance. If SEO is so simple, where is there such a demand for answers? There's a reason why attendence continues to grow at shows like SES and PubCon. There's a reason why SEO oriented sites are amongst the most highly trafficked sites on the web (according to Alexa), including Matt Cutts Blog (#1256), Searchenginewatch (#811), Searchengineland (#3963 and growing) and Webmasterworld (#226). People are looking for answers to complicated questions. Not rocket science perhaps, but not a lead pipe cinch either. By the way, Did-It and their Frog Blog are not quite at the same level (#63,244) as these sites that deal with the supposedly artificial "mystique" around SEO.

I would do a Google search for the term “search engine optimization” and run away from any company which can’t even get themselves into the top five organic results. Doctor, heal thyself! And don’t believe for a second that these firms are not trying to get themselves to this coveted position. If they did, they’d win every sale. Maybe I would even hire them.

Okay, let's apply Pasternack's logic to himself. Do a search for paid search management in Google and see if Did-It has presence. Here, I'll save you the trouble:

Hmm, don't see Did-It there. Should we assume that Did-It isn't very good at what they do? Is it because the return isn't worth the investment? It could be a number of reasons. And unlike Pasternack, I would hate to make assumptions about their lack of presence because I don't have all the facts. Carrying this further, let's look at some of the top SEO agencies, according to Advertising Age's recent survey in their Search Fact Pack. Of the top 20, none of them are currently ranking in the top 5 for "search engine optimization". Does that mean you should run from them? No, there's probably other reasons for it.

Obviously, there is no such thing as the final word in an internet based debate. But a word of advice to Dave Pasternack here. At some point stirring the pot turns into flogging a dead horse.

Just a quick post between sessions in Seattle, but we were walked through PhotoSynth, which currently lives in Live Labs. Very cool. Take their Tech Preview for a spin.

The rumblings have been in the works for sometime, but Yahoo has set Feb 5 as D-Day for the roll out of their new quality and relevancy scoring on paid search ads. No longer will bid price be the sole determining factor that determines position, bringing Yahoo! closer to Google's model.

In a release that just hit my inbox, Yahoo says:

"With the new ranking model, all Yahoo! search marketing ads in the U.S. will be ranked by quality in addition to keyword bid price. As a result, Yahoo! will be able to provide a more relevant search experience to users, more valuable customer leads to advertisers, and additional opportunities to its distribution partners.

“Yahoo! is very excited to introduce our new, more quality-focused ranking model because it has the power to significantly enhance the experience we deliver to our users and unlock the full potential of Yahoo!’s search marketing network,” said Terry Semel, chief executive officer, Yahoo! Inc. “With this important piece in place our new search marketing system will allow Yahoo! to more effectively connect people with the businesses, products, services and information they are passionate about.”

Sure, it's marketspeak, but what do you expect from a media release? Posts about the roll out should be going live soon on the YSM blog, but as of this posting, they weren't live yet. There'll probably be something on the Yodel blog as well, but again, nothing yet.

A number of people will post on what this means for execution of marketing strategies. I'd like to comment about the user experience and what this means. Here are some findings about interactions with top sponsored based on our most recent eye tracking study:

Yahoo devotes more screen real estate to top sponsored ads than either Google or MSN. This often marginalizes the presence of organic listings above the fold at typical resolutions. While Google and MSN often shows 2 or 3 organic results at 1024 X 768, often Yahoo only manages to squeeze one result in.

People tend to scan 3 or 4 results at a time, and they almost always start at the top, including these top sponsored ads. They also like to include one organic result in this initial scan set. Yahoo's regular presentation of 4 top sponsored results breaks the user's desire to have an organic alternative in their scan set.

Yahoo's emphasis on top sponsored ads did mean they captured the highest click throughs of any of the 3 engines on top sponsored ads, FOR FIRST VISITS ONLY. On repeat visits, these click through rates dropped dramatically on Yahoo!, but Google managed to hold their rates steady.

Yahoo had the highest occurence of pogo sticking (returning to the results page after clicking through to a site) and a number of these were after a click on a top sponsored ad. This indicated that many searchers didn't find what they were looking for, and purposely avoided top sponsored ads on the repeat visits.

All of these findings indicate that Yahoo's announcement will be good news for users. These top sponsored ads are a key monetization strategy for Yahoo, and if they can improve performance by increasing relevancy, it will mean less pogo sticking and keeping users from avoiding these listings on repeat visits. And good news for users will translate into better results for advertisers.

Of course the cynical side of me asks, "what took you so long?" I think the time is right for Yahoo to leapfrog Google, not keep playing catch up.

Brandt Dainow at Think Metrics shared the results of his campaign performance with Google Adwords and came up with the following conclusions:

• There is no relationship between the position of an advertisement in the Google Ad listings and the chance of that ad being clicked on.
• Bidding more per visitor in order to get a higher position will not get you more visitors.
• The number one position in the listings is not the best position.
• No ad position is any better than any other.
• The factor which has the most bearing on your chance of being clicked on is the text in your ad, not the ad's position.

These conclusions were arrived at after analyzing the Google ads he ran this year. He says,

“while position in the listings used to be important, it is not anymore. People are more discriminating in their use of Google Ads than they used to be; they have learned to read the ads rather than just click the first one they see”

This runs directly counter to all the research we’ve done, and also that done by others, including Atlas one point. So I decided it was worth a deeper dive.

First, some facts about the analysis. It was done on ads he ran in October and November of last year, for the Christmas season. He acknowledges that this isn’t a definitive analysis, but the results are surprising enough that he encourages everyone to test their own campaigns.

In the following chart, he tracks the click through per position.

Brandt expected to see a chart that started high on the left, and tapered down as it moved to the right. But there seemed to be little correlation between position and click through. This runs counter to our eye tracking, which showed a strong correlation, primarily on first page visits. Top sponsored ads on Google received 2 to 3 times the click throughs.

Further, Atlas OnePoint did some analysis from their data set, and similarly found a fairly high correlation between position and click through on Google and Overture/Yahoo.

So why the difference?

Well, here are a couple thoughts right off the bat. Dainow's data is exclusively for his campaigns. We don’t see click through rates for the other listings, both paid and non-paid, on the page, so we can’t see how his ads stack up against others on the page. Also, it may be that for the campaigns in question, Brandt’s creative is more relevant than the other ads that show. He makes the point that creative is more important than position. I don’t necessarily agree completely. The two work together. The odds of being seen are substantially higher in the top spots, and your creative doesn’t work if it isn’t seen. The discriminating searcher that Dainow sees emerging who takes the time to read all the ads isn’t the searcher we see in eye tracking tests. That searcher quickly scans 3 to 4 listings, usually top sponsored and the top 1 or 2 organic listings and then makes their choice. This is not only true of our study, but the recent Microsoft one that just came out. Although Dainow's charts over time certainly seem to show that position is less important, there could be a number of other factors contributing to this.

I will agree with Brandt though that if seen, relevant and compelling copy does make a huge difference in the click through rate of the ad. And for consumer researchers in particular, I still see search advertiser’s cranking out copy that’s not aligned to intent. But all the evidence I’ve seen points to much higher visibility, and hence, click throughs, in the top sponsored spots.

When looking at analysis like Brandt Dainow is presenting, you have to be aware of all the variables. In this case, I’d really like to know the following:

·          What were the keywords that made up the campaigns

·          What was the creative that was running for his clients

·          What was the creative the competition was running

·          What were the overall click throughs for the page

In doing the analysis, you really need to control for these variables before you can make valid conclusions. Some are ones we can know, others, like the overall click throughs, only the engines would know.

But Dainow is quick to point that his findings show the need for individual testing on a campaign by campaign basis. And in that, we’re in complete agreement. Our eye tracking tests and other research shows general patterns over common searches, and the patterns have been surprisingly consistent from study to study. It probably gives us as good idea as any what typical searcher behavior might be. But as I’ve said before, there is no such thing as typical behavior. Look at enough searches and an average, aggregate pattern emerges, but each search is different. It depends on searcher intent, it depends on the results and what shows on the page, it depends on the engines,  it depends on what searchers find on the other side of the click. All these things can dramatically affect a scan pattern. So while you might look to our studies or others as a starting point, we continually encourage you to use our findings to set up your own testing frameworks. Don’t take anything for granted. But that’s a message that often doesn’t get through. And my concern is that advertisers looking for a magic bullet will read Dainow’s conclusions highlighted at the top of this post and swallow them whole, without bothering to digest them. And there’s still far too many question marks about this analysis for anyone to do that. I’ve contacted Dainow to set up a chat so I can find out more. Hopefully we can shed more light on this question.

Brandt expected to see a chart that started high on the left, and tapered down as it moved to the right. But there seemed to be little correlation between position and click through. This runs counter to our eye tracking, which showed a strong correlation, primarily on first page visits. Top sponsored ads on Google received 2 to 3 times the click throughs

Okay..gotta love this one. Worth1000.com is running a contest asking for submissions showing Apple's next product, courtesy of a little Photoshopping. This is my personal favorite:

But there's plenty more. Check them out!

A few posts ago I talked about KnowledgeStorm's new study on the use of social networking by B2B technology buyers. Apparently, the two facts that were getting reported were a little misleading in the way they were presented. Matt Lohman from KnowledgeStorm clears them up:

Just as I'm doing one post about Seth's log, he's in the middle of making another post. Here it's about Web 4.0 (yeah, he's skipping a version or two). But in reading how Seth envisions the Web 4.0, it struck me how close it is to a vision I've had for some time (in fact, some of his examples sound eerily close to ones I've used in articles and presentations).

Seth's quote:

"I'm booked on a flight from Toledo to Seattle. It's cancelled. My phone knows that I'm on the flight, knows that it's cancelled and knows what flights I should consider instead. It uses semantic data but it also has permission to interrupt me and tell me about it. Much more important, it knows what my colleagues are doing in response to this event and tells me. 'Follow me' gets a lot easier.

Google watches what I search. It watches what other people like me search. Every day, it shows me things I ought to be searching for that I'm not. And it introduces me to people who are searching for what I'm searching for."

For those interested, here's are a couple versions of my vision:

All Roads Lead Online: What Happens When Our Entertainment Choices Converge with Online and Become Interactive.

Tales of Mobile Woe: Looking for True Usability in a Handheld Device

It's interesting and overwhelming to ponder. I think the next 5 years will prove to be cataclysmic. It's all about making the Web more useful. It's about making it ubiquitous and weaving it into our daily lives. And that's where the introduction of revolutionary new handheld devices will shake things up dramatically. Apple's iPhone could mark the beginning of a whole new phase of handheld functionality. As Cory Treffiletti points out in his column this week, Mobile Marketing is getting a lot more interesting with the promise of this functionality. On the flip side, Steve Smith reminds us that the mobile interfaces of most properties have a painfully long way to go.

There's a new crop of search interfaces coming out, many spin offs from the big engines themselves, and I'll be trying to take a look at them from the user's perspective. Today I took ChaCha for a spin. Here's some background (and hype) from their About page

"ChaCha stands out as different and better in a landscape cluttered with common search engines because it uses the World's most powerful technology - The human brain.

ChaCha's goal is to provide a better search experience by combining results that are hand-picked by our knowledgeable human guides with the best computer-generated search results. In those cases where you can't find what you need with our instant results, ChaCha will connect you with a live human guide who will find the information for you through an instant messaging-style search session.

Scott Jones and Brad Bostic, two dynamic entrepreneurs who were not satisfied with millions of irrelevant search results provided by first generation search engines, believed a better experience could be created by tapping into human intelligence. Since starting ChaCha, they have been hard at work with the ChaCha team to create:

• A smart search engine that "learns" by tapping into human intelligence so its results are always improving
• A place to find exactly what you're looking for instantly
• Help from people who are knowledgeable about the very thing you are looking for when instant results don't have the answer "

Fellow Enquiro blogger Marina Garrison tried out Cha Cha and shared her thoughts. Here are mine. Unfortunately, there's no good news here for the Cha Cha team.

"A Better Search Experience"

I started out by looking for hotels in Kauai. I used the default, automated search. At the same time, I did a search on Google for the same query. My intent was to compare my options, so I was looking for a link that would show me a number of properties. Google did pretty well, with both official and unofficial accommodation guides rounding out the top algorithmic results returned in the customary fraction of a second. Definitely something here I would click on.

Cha Cha's automated results were far less satisfying.

First, there was a sponsored link at the top, but no advertiser. That's okay, it's a beta, so I didn't really expect one. But all the other results have a "sponsored by" line at the bottom. I'm confused. Are they sponsored links or not? Confusion is not good in a user experience. The results were mostly for individual properties, not very descriptive, and the same site showed twice in the top 4 results. The only guide I saw was well down on the top 10, and it wasn't an official guide. The results weren't really matched to my intent. Strike Two.  Once again, what was it that Cha Cha was offering?

"ChaCha's goal is to provide a better search experience by combining results that are hand-picked by our knowledgeable human guides with the best computer-generated search results."

Oh..right. Okay, maybe I'll try the "knowledgeable human guide" because after all, "it uses the World's most powerful technology - The human brain"

I hit the search with guide button

The interface changed and opened up a pane on the left. There was a pause of at least 10 seconds while I waited to connect with a guide. In 10 seconds on Google, I'd have clicked off the page by now, but I'll be patient. Finally I'm connected to DelaineL, who greeted me with a "Good Afternoon". This despite I did this at 10 am local time. Hmmm..mental note for Scott and Brad, our "dynamic entrepreneuers"...you'll have to work out that time change thing.

Now, I wasn't sure what to do. Do they just pick up from the last query I did? There were no instructions I could see. I waited. Finally DelaineL sent me a "Hi!". I guess I have to reenter my query in the message box. We're approaching a minute now. I told Delaine (not sure whether this is a male or female Delaine) I was looking to compare hotels in Kauai. I wanted to be fair, giving my human guide a chance to give me the types of results I was looking for.

"Find exactly what you're looking for instantly "

I was expecting a page of 10 results to pop right up. Instead, after many more seconds, I got one.

And it was for the same site that showed up twice in the top 4 organic results. This was the best that the "world's most powerful technology" can do?  Also, the page they sent me was actually a landing page built for a Google Adwords campaign. Not really what I was looking for. So, was this the only result I was going to get? I asked my guide. I was told the second result was loading. When it came up, it was an Expedia search results page, along with an apology for the delay and the assurance that Delaine was looking for the most relevant results. The response sounded suspiciously canned though.

I guess that's what took the time, the guide went to Expedia and launched the search for me. I guess that's good.

"People who are knowledgeable about the very thing you are looking for "

Okay, I'm sure Delaine is an excellent person, kind to kids and animals, and is probably an expert in many areas, but what makes him/her an expert on Kauai? How does Delaine know what I was searching for? Does ChaCha have a room full of people monitoring my initial search activity, and when I click on the guide button, a red light starts flashing and an announcement rings out at Cha Cha Headquarters, "Attention, we need a Kauai Expert on seach 1045..Stat!!" ? I somehow doubt it. Lets put the "knowledgeable" line down to more marketing spin.

Also, do we really want a human somewhere knowing what we're searching for? I don't think so. Most of us prefer to search anonymously, or at least what we think is anonymously (ignorance is bliss in this case, until we're rudely awoken by a AOL debacle). I suppose if someone were really stuck, they would try their luck with a search guide, but based on my experience, it wouldn't be something I would ever do again.

By this point, I had spent a good 2 or 3 minutes doing something that would take a few seconds on Google, and I didn't get results any better than I would have received there. Sorry ChaCha, but you hit a sour note with me.

And now I go on my user experience diatribe. There's obviously a lot of infrastructure behind Cha Cha. I have no idea how many human guides they have but to make this scalable (they say thousands), but it appears that they're paid by the search. This is not a cheap start up. But this will undoubtedly fail. It offers no compelling reason to use it. It's far inferior to other options that have established themselves with users. A little bit of research should have shown this. I've talked to a few people who have used it. None of them will ever use it again. I'm sure the people at ChaCha will say they had tremendous response from their initial tests. BS. If thats the response they got, they weren't doing the tests correctly. This will be a waste of a lot of people's time and some significant investment on somebody's (apparently Jeff Bezos) part. And it could have been avoided with proper usability testing. There's a lot wrong with ChaCha, and not much right. The interface is junky and clunky. It's like a flashback to the dot com bubble.

If you're going to Cha Cha, try not to step on your partner's toes. I'm still limping.

Postscript

After the post, I ran across Rob Garner's SearchInsider column from yesterday (obviously have to clean out my folders more often) on his experience with ChaCha. While not ideal, it seems Rob is more optimistic than I am:

"I would bet that they find a niche in the market with a loyal user base, and that we may see more innovation from them to come in the form of user interface, and/or behavioral research. "

I guess one thing ChaCha has going for it is the ability to get live user feedback, real time. I hope they listen.

The worlds of social networking and search are beginning to blur more and more. And the number of influencers that are networking is higher than you might think. It's not all about MySpace, but in many cases, contact networks like LinkedIn. New research from KnowledgeStorm and Universal McCann shows these seemingly contradictory findings:

"Seventy seven percent of B2B technology buyers have little to no familiarity with social networking online. Of the 24% who are very accustomed to social networks, a large majority of the respondents visit these sites at least once a month.

70% of B2B technology buyers use social networking sites for business networking and/or development, though 59% admit to also using these sites for personal reasons."

So if 77% don't know what social networking is, but 70% use them, what's going on? I think it comes from many people not knowing that having a LinkedIn or Plaxo network actually counts as social networking. They're participating, but they don't know it. When they think social networking, they're thinking about teenagers spending hours on MySpace or Second Life.

And at 70% usage, it's a channel worth paying some attention to. Luckily, Guy Kawasaki recently engaged Kay Luo and Mike Lin at LinkedIn to brush up his profile. Check out the results of Guy's Profile "Extreme Makeover".

I remember the first time I went to my local gym and saw a new sign, hastily hand drawn and posted, announcing that cell phones were no longer allowed in the change rooms. It took me a minute or two to get it, but I finally figured it out. Ahh..they come with cameras now.

There are two dimensions to this that I wanted to briefly explore. First of all, with digital cameras everywhere, businesses have to be more careful about the face they show to the public, because it's likely that if their bad side is showing, there'll be someone there to snap a picture. Consider the example of one Kohl's store in Dallas.

A shopper visited the store in the post Christmas season, found a store that looked like a tornado just ripped through it and just happened to have a cell phone with a camera and a fairly well read blog. It gets worse. His post happened to catch the eye of Seth Godin, who has one of the most read blogs on the Web. The result? A PR nightmare for Kohl's. And this can happen anywhere. The next time a character at Disneyworld alledgedly sucker punches a guest, you can count on a camera being nearby. It's enough to make your average PR Director retire to a remote Caribbean isle, one without internet connections.

The second implication has to do with personal privacy. If there are pictures snapped of us, and they get posted to the web without our knowing, or our permission, what will the fall out be? They're there for the whole world to see, through any one of a number of image search engines. Fellow SearchInsider David Berkowitz explores that in his column today:

"The overarching issue, the one that’s most likely to keep me up at night, is, “Do we have to entirely relinquish our right to privacy?” If the answer is yes, then it simplifies the issue. We press forward with every technological innovation, privacy be damned. We accept that everything we say can be recorded, and it’s not just to improve customer service."

Smile..you're on Candid Camera!

Over at Searchengineland, Danny Sullivan did a deeper dive into the Microsoft Eye Tracking Study that I posted about last Friday. In it, Danny said:

"Interesting, the pattern is different that the "golden triangle" that Enquiro has long talked about in its eye tracking studies, where you see all the red along the horizontal line of the top listing (indicating a lot of reading there), then less on the second listing, then less still as you move down. "

I just want to draw a few distinctions between the studies. In our study, we wanted to replicate typical search behavior as much as possible, so let people interact with actual results pages. In the Microsoft study, they were testing what would happen when the most relevant result was moved down the page and how searchers responded to different snippet lengths. The results, while actual results, were intercepted and were restructured in a way (i.e., stripping out sponsored ads) to let the researchers test different variables. We have said repeatedly that the Golden Triangle is not a constant, as is shown in our second study, but follows intent and the presentation of the search results.

In fact, the Microsoft study does confirm many of our findings, in the linear scanning of results, the scanning of groups of results and the importance of being in the top 5.

Another potential misconception that could be drawn from Danny's interpretation of results is hard and fast rules about how many results searchers scan. He settled on the number five. When looking at eye tracking results, it's vital to remember that there is no typical activity. Please don't take an average and apply it as a rule of thumb. Averages, or aggregate heat maps, are just that. They're what happens when you take a lot of different sessions, varying greatly, and mash them together. Scanning activity is highly dependent on the intent of the user and what appears on the search results page. A particularly relevant result in top sponsored, matched to the intent of the majority of users, would probably mean little scanning beyond the first or second organic result. On the other hand, if the query is more ambiguous, you could see scanning a lot deeper on the page. The Microsoft study used two tasks that would generate a limited number of queries, and recorded interactions based on this limited scope. Our studies, while using more tasks, still out of necessity represented the tiniest slice of possible interactions.

After looking at over a thousand sessions in the past 2 years, I've learned first hand that there are a lot of variables in scanning patterns and interactions with the search page. An eye tracking study provides clues, but no real answers. You have to take the results and try to extrapolate them beyond the scope of the study. We spent a lot of time doing this when writing up both our reports. You try to find universal behaviors and commonalities, but you have to be very careful not to accept the results at face value. Drawing conclusions such as snippet lengths should be longer or that official site tags should become standard are dangerous, because it's not true for every search. The study actually found that ideal snippet length is highly dependent on the task and intent of the user.

If anything, what eye tracking has shown me is the need for more flexible search results, personalized to me and my intent at the time.

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:

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.

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 couple months ago I wrote a column about a potential showdown between privacy advocates and Web 2.0 supporters. I identified a crisis point being reached as behavioral targeting became more common and began influencing our search results. Of course, a large part of the functionality touted in Web 2.0 plans depends on the surrender of a certain degree of privacy.

My prediction was that it would case a temporary fuss, which would be picked up by some, but that for the vast majority of us, we would put aside our concerns when we realized the benefits of a better online experience:

"More and more consumer groups will launch protests. Politicians will sense opportunity and jump on their soapboxes. There will be a very vocal minority that will rail against this “Big Brotherism.” There will also be a group of advertisers that will continue to step way beyond the acceptable, using targeting to subvert the user experience, rather than enhance it, hijacking the user and taking them to places they never intended. This will add fuel to the fire. And because they’re the most visible target, the search engines will bear the brunt of the attack.

In the end, we’ll realize there’s much more pro than con here. Effective targeting will generally add to our experience, not take away from it. We’ll toy with trying to use a third-party privacy filter, but in the end, most of us won’t be willing to give up the additional functionality in return for maintaining an illusion of anonymity online. Much of the usefulness of Web 2.0 (I know, I hate the term too, but at least it’s commonly understood) will be dependent on capturing personal and click-stream data. We’ll give in, and the storm will gradually fade away on the horizon."

Indeed, it seems that while the danger is certainly in the minds of privacy advocates and some legislators, most consumers don't really care, despite the occassional horror story like the recent AOL debacle. Privacy Advocate Mike Valentine posted this comment after the column ran:

"I’ve been predicting the same approaching privacy storm for about 5 years now. After each breach of data in hack attacks, after ChoicePoint sold data to bad guys posing as customers (hmmm), after VA laptops are lost exposing veterans to identity theft, after AOL exposed private users search queries, and on and on and on. The storms never come, the public doesn’t care, the media reports the hacks, breaches, thefts, criminal activity and identity thefts and moves on because consumers simply don’t care until identity theft or public embarassment happens to them."

Now, a new study from Choicestream seems to indicate I was on the right track. The number of respondents willing to share some information in return for a better experience rose fairly dramatically, from 46% last year to 57% this year.

The number willing to let a website track their clicks and purchases in return for personalized content climbed from 32% to 43%.

What's interesting about this is that these numbers returned to the levels seen in the 2004 survey. 2005 definitely saw a heightened awareness to privacy issues that seems to be abating somewhat. But although consumers seem to be willing to trade off privacy, they do so grudgingly and with some concern. 63% of them are still worried about the security of their personal data.

I believe it's a combination of convenience and blissful ignorance that's keeping the privacy storm clouds from coming to a head. The reality is, like most things, we won't impact the smooth sailing of our day-to-day lives unless we get burned. And then, we'll be looking for someone to blame.

Microsoft has just released the results of an internal eye tracking study that looked at the impact of snippet length. For more detail, visit Marina Garrison's blog where she looks at the notable findings.

A few quick ones and some comments:

Snippet length doesn't seem to impact people's search strategies.

This makes sense to us. We found scanning for word patterns rather than actual reading. In fact, a longer snippet may actually detract from the user experience in certain scenarios, such as navigational search. It makes it more difficult to pick up information scent quickly. Remember, we're on and off the search page as quickly as possible.

People scan 4 listings regardless

This is definitely aligned with the Rule of 3 (or 4) we found in our eye tracking study. We found, however, that this isn't a hard and fast rule, but rather a pretty common tendency. It changes depending on whether top sponsored ads appeared, how closely aligned the top result was to intent and other factors. But in general, we would agree that most people tend to scan 3 or 4 listings before clicking on one.

Scenario Success Rates Dropped Dramatically as the "Best" Listing Moved Down the Page

No big surprise here. This was referred to in our first study as the "Google" Effect, and it comes from our being trained that best result should show up on top. I actually co-authored a paper with Dr. Bajaj and Dr. Wood at the University of Tulsa about this very topic. By the way, it was Dr. Bajaj that called it the "Google" Effect, not me, so please Yahoo and Microsoft, don't beat me up on this one.

The report is available for download.

This is kind of cool, in a really creepy way. According to a recent study, Scientists can now tap into the brain and predict whether you're going to buy something or not. Not to get all scientific on you, but apparently a portion of the brain called the nucleus accumbens "lights up" on a brain scan if you're ready to whip out the plastic. But, if the price tag is out of your budget range, another region of the brain called the insula is activated and the mesial prefrontal cortex is deactivated. Dr. Brian Knutson of Stanford and his team are doing the research.

So, think of this future scenario:

Google gets wind of this and brings this into the Google Labs. They work with Intel to develop a small implantable chip that constantly monitors this part of the brain. Through a secret agreement with the U.S. Government, giving the Homeland Security teamaccess to everyone's online history, Google gets the right to implant the chip in every new child born in the U.S. The chips are connected through wi-fi, so that Google can monitor everyone's inclination to make a purchase. You can now test your Google campaigns right down to the purchase, setting up A/B tests with the ultimate feedback loop.

Mmm..the mind boggles with the possibilities here....

Don't you love one-up-manship?

I posted earlier about Lee Odden's must read search blog list. Now, Allister Cameron has turned it into a search engine, complete with code you can cut and paste on your own site. Pretty cool. It searches the content of all the sites Lee included on his list.

Now, given the audience, will we become obsessed with improving our own rankings on this niche engine?

My earlier post about the future of SEO caught Jason Lee Miller's attention over at Webpronews. So far, Jason is one of the few to grasp the Richter Scale implications of this shift in the SEM landscape. Danny Sullivan saw the danger signs some time ago. I traded a few emails with Danny on this and his response was:

"I did a lot of writing about personalized search about two years ago sounding the same alarm. Then it never really happened, the personal results that is. They'll come, of course."

Meanwhile, Kevin Lee continues to poke away at the SEM-SEO controversy that his partner David Pasternack started. There are those suggesting that this is an elaborate link baiting scheme on Kevin's part. While his speculating on the future of SEO is certainly generating lots of controversy, and hence, links out there in the blogosphere, the cynics are missing the point that all those links are pointing to Kevin's Clickz column, not his corporate online properties. No, I suspect Kevin's motivation in this case is his self professed tendency to be a intellectual shit disturber. He likes to stir up polarized discussion, because if you know Kevin, there's nothing he likes better than a good debate.

As you know from the previous post, I have a slightly different take (and I use the word slightly deliberately, I happen to agree with a lot of what Kevin said in his last column) on the debate than does Kevin. His point is that SEO can be brought in-house because for a lot of websites, you just have to do the basics right and they'll get a huge lift. Couple this with the desire, expressed in the latest SEMPO survey, of a lot of companies to handle all this SEO in-house because there's a lack of a recognized and trusted leader in the SEO Marketplace and it's not that hard to see Kevin's point. To be fair, Kevin also pointed out that a lot of companies want to bring their paid search in-house as well.

But here's the thing. SEO is going to get a lot harder, not easier. And that increasing difficulty is going to be in area that today's crop of SEO's have next to no experience in: knowing the end user. And that get's back to Jason's story in Webpronews. He states:

"While focus on keywords has been the law of the searchland, SEO professionals will have to more diligently and acutely focus on the end user - every unique end user - mulling scenarios, personalities, and motivations, which makes SEO more akin to traditional marketing, where a firm grasp of psychological concepts is as necessary as the technical acuity of keyword targeting."

Exactly, but in that paragraph lies a world of adjustment, and I'm not sure most SEO's are up to the challenge.

Here are some things to think about:

As results become more personalized, the work ranking ceases to have meaning. Just a few months ago the question of ranking reporting came up in an analytics session I was participating in. This has been part of SEO since the beginning and has been an ongoing sore spot between the engines and the SEO community. I mentioned that ranking reporting might soon become irrelevant, expecting it to generate a bit of controversy (in that, I do share Kevin's delight in stirring the pot sometimes). To my surprise, nobody picked up on it. Fellow SEO's on the panel even failed to take the bait. I felt like screaming "The whole world is about to change as you know it!" but I chose instead to go to the exhibit hall for the free drink. It was the end of the day and I was tired.

SEO's are all about controlled experimentation. We live to tally up suspected algorithmic factors and test, tweak and twiddle. We reverse engineer the algorithms. Say what you want, that's basically what SEO is. It's all about tactical maneuvering. I've been bemoaning the lack of strategic thinking, based on what users are actually doing, for years now, but the industry hasn't changed much. To reverse engineer, you need a control to test against. You need at least one fixed target. Up to now, the universal page of results was that fixed target. How do you reverse engineer when you have nothing to set your bearings against?

As Jason so rightly points out, this new world of SEO is much more about marketing than it is a technical skill set. It's about knowing your user intimately and where they tend to hang out, given a specific intent. It's about staking out the most traveled intersections and gaining some presence there. It's about knowing how they'll use the new version of search to navigate the online landscape. And it's about accepting, once and for all, that you really can't control your presence on the search results page, however it appears.

And it's here where Kevin's view and mine coincide. In a lot of cases, it will be about doing the fundamentals right. If you have a site that has an established presence, then this is often enough. Make sure you connect the spider with the content. Make sure the content and your target customer share the same vocabulary. Make sure you're not throwing any road blocks between your site and the search index. Do that, and accept the fact that your control pretty much ends there. That's not to downplay the importance of this knowledge. I agree with Danny Sullivan that SEO skills are not nearly as common as David Pasternack seems to indicate. But I believe the days of the SEO hacker/hired gun are numbered. Personalized search may be what finally kills black hat SEO.

With that, organic optimization returns to its roots, and what the word organic should have meant in the first place. It's about working with the client to help them understand how consumers use online to research and to help them turn their organization into an organic content factory. Help them use online to provide multiple and useful touchpoints for the potential consumer. Extend your presence into the well travelled online intersections. Establish best practices for SEO, and let the rest take care of itself. As Kevin rightly points out in his column:

"Alternatively, one could simply focus on producing great content and take whatever links occur naturally (the way Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page intended in the original PageRank system)."

It's here where SEO's have their biggest challenge. Can they transition from a technical experimenter to a trusted guide to online traffic patterns? I have my doubts. I have seen little evidence of this in the past. SEM's tend to be further ahead in this regard, because of the targeting opportunities that the back end platforms provide. Ironically, this is where interactive and traditional agencies could regain a foothold, but in the later case at least, they're still struggling with the whole concept of an empowered online consumer, and until this paradigm shifts for them, they have a huge blind spot when it comes to online strategy.

SEO's have to reinvent themselves, and soon. Some of the skills will be transferrable, but many new ones have to be acquired, and these are not usually skills that are found in the same place. I expect a shakeout, and soon. A lot of SEO's have been doing this for a long time, and they're getting a little tired. Reinventing themselves is probably the last thing they want to do. Cashing out was probably more in their anticipated plans.

So, how soon is this going to happen. Let's get back to Danny's point. Personalization is nothing new, but I think 2007 is the year where it will make a noticeable difference. There are a couple of indicators of that:

Google is already experimenting with Geo-targeting results based on IP identification. Those of you in the States probably haven't noticed, because the online world is very US-centric, but those of us who live on the outside are already dealing with the effects. In Canada, there is a significant difference in results seen in the main Google index depending on whether the query is coming from the US or Canada. It's a constant bain of our existence, being based in Canada but working primarily with US clients. So even in North America right now, there is no such thing as a universal set of Google results.

Personalized search that users opt in for is finally gaining significant traction. All the 3 engines offer this, and often the fact that you're signed in is completely missed by the user. As adoption of other functionality offered by the engines increases, the odds of being signed in when you launch a search rises dramatically. And for the engines, search history is enough additional information to make them confident in presenting personalized results. It gives them another reference point in addition to the original query. The difficulty in disambiguating intent for a query was the sole reason results weren't personalized up to now.

What does the future hold for SEO? Well, as long as users continue to want organic results (and I think personalization will make this more true, not less) there is a need to gain presence there. But the rules of the game are being rewritten. For those willing to retrench, there's a golden opportunity to redefine marketing as we know it. But it requires looking at a big picture, and, more importantly, using a customer-centric lens to look at that picture. It means changing our approach dramatically. It means drawing back from some highly specialized skills that some have developed, and taking a more balanced approach. Personally, I'm very excited about the possibilities. A little tired, a little burnt out, but up for the challenge. But perhaps that's because I saw it coming.

Danny Sullivan has an interesting post in Searchengineland about the virtual rumblings over at Wikipedia about removing Matt Cutts because he's not notable. Say what?

You know, community is a wonderful thing, but there are community dynamics at play, no matter whether the community is based in the virtual world or the real one. There tend to be what I would call conscientious blockheads, strongly opinionated people with a lot of time on their hands that tend to have an undue influence on most forums and wiki's, or, in traditional terms, volunteer organizations. It's a bit of a love hate relationship, because they are, after all, volunteers and often are the sole reason that the organizations and volunteer initiatives can continue to survive. But they tend to bend the collective view to their own strongly held personal perspective. And often, they exert their own need for control and recognition in this relative vacuum. Think PTA's, think the executive of service organizations, think strata councils, think churches. I'll bet you've all already thought of a person just like I'm describing, right?

Well, this type of person, armed with an Internet connection, has now found a new home, and this is true wherever online communities are gathering. Wikipedia would be a case in point. I think any rational person who has a modicom of expertise in the search space would know that Matt Cutts is probably one of the 10 most notable people in search, for a number of reasons that Danny Sullivan outlines (and I think Danny is shortchanging his own notability, but that's another post).

The beauty of online communities are that there is a certain degree of transparency. We can all participate, if we choose. And us voicing our (hopefully) informed opinion is enough to hold the conscientious blockheads in check. Danny is doing exactly what we should all do, voicing his opinion and filling the vacuum.

This is a debate that seems to have legs. A few posts back, I came to the defense of SEO from the user's perspective.

In catching up with a few articles and chatting with a few key people in the industry, I've got another perspective that I'd like to share.

First of all, Joe Laratro in last Friday's SearchInsider debunked Three SEO Myths, one of which was "Natural Search is Dead". In it, Joe correctly stated:

"Natural search engine optimization is still thriving. It is more difficult today than it was five or six years ago, but the core of search results are still free. Natural Search Engine Optimization being dead is a popular myth because of the standardization of methodology that is now used. Each of the major search engines has released guidelines for Webmasters that detail the dos and don'ts of Web site optimization. Since more of the online world is aware of successful optimization techniques, they do not work as well. In other words, there is more competition from knowledgeable optimizers armed with the same toolsets."

Back to this in a minute. Also, in sorting through some old articles set aside, I ran across this one from Todd Friesen about Learning the New Rules of Search. It touched on the same topic, looking at what might happen when SEO's no longer have access to the intelligence tools they use on their competitors, through some type of authentication requirement.

"A move like this, which would block our ability to do competitive research at that level, would be a setback, if not a crushing blow, to SEO as we know it. That got me thinking. Where would that leave all of us search engine optimizers? What research avenues would be left?"

Finally, in the last few weeks, I have talked to representatives from the usability teams at Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. I asked each what was the major challenge for search. The answer varied slightly, but it all went to providing better results, aligned to individual intent. (By the way, I'm currently working on a series of articles from these interviews..more about this to come later)

So, to go back to the orginal reason for the post. What is the future of SEO? Both Joe and Todd are looking at this assuming the current paradigm of one query, one page of 10 organic results holds. In fact, the entire SEO industry is hanging on this paradigm. Right now, link baiting/building, optimization, competitive intelligence and all the rest are aimed at securing a top spot in the organic results. But what happens when there no longer is a "top spot" because every result is personalized, based on your geographic origin, your past search history, your behavior or preferences you've shared with the engines. That's where search is going, through a number of different initiatives, and if less transparency with access to tools would deal a "crushing blow to SEO" imagine what that would do.

Now, that doesn't make organic any less important to the user. In fact, the increase in personal relevancy will make it more important than ever. So I still stand by my original thought that organic results, of some kind, will always be part of the results set presented. But from a tactical perspective, the disappearance of universal search results throws a King Kong sized monkey wrench in the SEO works. In Canada, we're already dealing with this as Google experiments with re-ordering organic search results based on Geo-targeting of user IP's. The same is true in the UK and other markets.

But how do you tactically deliver SEO services in this new environment? The word ranking ceases to have meaning. There will always be a hierarchy in the results, but it will be different for each person. The control of measuring progress by positions achieved will come to a crashing halt and with it, the SEO industry as we know it. If you thought SEO was a black box before, wait til you try it under these new rules.

A new study has reaffirmed something I'm hearing more and more. Big agencies don't get online.

Sapient, through Evalueserve, surveyed a number of CMO's, and just over half of them believe that traditional, large ad agencies are "ill-suited to meet online marketing needs". They believe that there's too much invested in traditional models, and that agencies can't think beyond these constraints.

The upshot? Fewer than 10% of those polled seek to partner with large agencies for online marketing. They instead look for partners with roots in technology, a high degree of creativity and traditional print expertise, or, even more common, to use multiple agencies.

It's not that large agencies don't have people capable of getting online. In many cases, they do. But they're trapped in a rigid and bureaucratic structure that sucks the lifeblood out of the bold thinking and initiative essential for online. They spend more time fighting turf wars than they do providing value to clients, and it seems that the clients are getting tired of it.

Increasingly, large agencies are struggling to understand the shifting marketplace. They are fighting the idea of a participatory approach to branding, with a community of consumers at least as important in the process as the actual brand itself. They are far more comfortable with the more traditional, and much more profitable, command and controlled channel form of marketing that has been built over the last several decades. They're struggling to win in a new game where they don't know the rules, largely because they haven't been written yet.

The big agencies are out there shopping right now. They're looking to buy expertise needed. I wonder how successful this will be. It's not just the expertise they're lacking. It's the environment needed to let their experts do their job. You can buy all the roses you want, but if you lock them in a dark basement, you're not going to see much blooming.

In a brilliant example of win/win, Lee Odden has shared his OPML file for the 250 Must Read Blogs in the SEM space. Thanks for including me on the list Lee! As you may have noticed, I'm trying to be more diligent about posting this year (New Year's Resolutions and all) so hopefully I can persuade you to remove the comment "posts about search marketing from time to time".

But consider the win/win aspects of this:

• Lee helps the community by sharing a great resource.
• Those included on the list share the love by posting a link on their own blogs back to Lee's post
• Lee suddenly gets hundreds of links from the best blogs in the business
• Lee's authority goes up
• Everybody wins!

For anyone looking at blog promotion, link baiting or just in how to align the online planets in your favor in general, this is a textbook example!

A new study from the Grizzard Performance Group found that US Shoppers don't have time to "shop around", with 62% not bothering to compare prices at even two stores. However, they're very open to saving money, right up to the time of purchase. It's just that they don't have the time.

This ties in with my previous post about real time inventory and e-shopping, currently being tested by a a few online services at malls and major chain stores. When we can quickly and conveniently check prices at a number of stores in our area through our handheld devices, trust me, shopping will change forever. And then, a whole new dimension of direct response marketing comes into play. Last minute pushes of discounts at the point of purchase, delivered through your mobile device. As the study by Grizzard indicates, consumers are very open to saving money on a comparable product, even if it wasn't previously in your consideration set. So consider this. The shopping engine knows what you're looking for, knows where you are, and knows what comparable products are in stock in the same store. The advertiser can purchase the right to push a message to you right at the point of purchase, offering you 15% off their product, or even offering an automated "match and beat" deal, where it automatically matches the price of whatever you're buying, and takes a further 10% off. A store around the corner could do the same thing, making it worth your while to check out at least one more store. All these things could easily be handled by algorithms and pre-set pricing thresholds.

And what if we take the Priceline approach? You're ready to buy, but before you do, you send an offer to stores in your area with what you're willing to pay for a particular product. The store in question can then decide whether to accept your offer or not. It would be true consumer control. And the really ironic thing? It's a whole bunch of sophisticated technology, but it brings us right back to old fashioned haggling over the price. Isn't it fascinating that the more sophisticated the technology, the closer we get to how we used to shop a century ago?

Had a chance to chat with Mike Macdonald from Webpronews at the recent Search Engine Strategies conference in Chicago. The video has just been posted on the site.

We chatted about SEMPO Institute and our latest eye tracking study.

As a follow up to the previous post on the US Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract, here's my Search Insider column which ran today. The tone is a little more tongue in cheek.

I always find it amusing when I tend to take things a little more light heartedly how people suddenly take the content more seriously. I was just checking on the SearchInsider blog and already there are comments defending the stats. To date, the two columns which have elicited the most comments are the one on Google's fighting the adoption of Googling as a verb and one on using Google Trends to analyze the ebb and flow of popular support for the American Idol contestants. The Census Bureau column promises to be right up there.

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales is creating a bit of a stir with his new project, a wiki based search engine temporarily called Search Wikia. Of course, the media are jumping at the chance to postulate whether this will be a Google killer. Wired.com has an interview with Wales that looks at the concept in a little more depth.

Wales definitely comes out swinging on the project website. First, he calls it "a project to create the search engine that changes everything". Bold, if nothing else.

He then comments:

"Search is part of the fundamental infrastructure of the Internet. And, it is currently broken.

Why is it broken? It is broken for the same reason that proprietary software is always broken: lack of freedom, lack of community, lack of accountability, lack of transparency. Here, we will change all that."

A community based search property is an intriguing concept, but not a terribly new one. Open Directory, GoGuides and others have gone here before. The difference here is the total opening of control, and using a wiki platform for collaborative development of the search index.

Here is the challenge, as I see it.

It's dependent on the involvement of the community. Wales has no idea how the community will be managed, and doesn't really plan on figuring this out. "I don't think it makes sense to manage a community." He's right. You can't manage a community, you incentivize them.  You give them a reason to participate. Wales seems to think altruism will be the motivating factor:

"It's about building a space where good people can come in and manage themselves and manage each other. They can have a distinct and clear purpose -- a moral purpose -- that unites people and brings them together to do something useful."

I disagree. There are a few altruistic netizens out there, but not nearly enough to help make this dream a reality. It's not a scalable concept. But, you say, what about Wikipedia? Isn't that based on the same premise? Yes, and no.

I believe that the main motivation on contributing to Wikipedia is to spout off on something you know about, and to leave a semi permanent footprint on the shifting sands of the Web. Whether it's attributed to you or not, when you can contribute to Wikipedia, you can point to something and say, "I did that. That's me..and this is how smart I am on this particular topic." I don't think altruism has much to do with it.

In a search engine wiki, your contribution would be hidden in a human powered algorithm. You wouldn't leave a footprint. There's no sense of you, no bragging rights. There's no compelling incentive to participate. And to bite off something at the scope Wales is envisioning, you would need huge numbers of people participating.

Personally, I would like to see Search Wikia work. But there's a reason why community based search hasn't worked til now. It's the same reason social tagging has questionable viability. Anytime you're asking people to be involved, you've introduced a limiting factor. There are a handful of people that get involved in something like this. They're enough to get a concept off the ground, and they'll do it because they're motivated by different things than the other 99% of society. But once you burn off that resource, you're stuck. Wales dream depends on tapping into the other 99%, and I just don't see that happening. We don't want to work that hard. There's no "whats in it for me?" reward for doing the heavy lifting.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Go ahead and take a few minutes to post a comment telling me why the average Net user is a more giving person than I believe them to be. I'll even give you credit for helping contribute to the betterment of the online world ;-)

The U.S. Census Bureau just released their new Statistical Abstact for 2007. In it, they predict the amount of time adults and teens will spend consuming media in various forms:

• 65 days in front of the TV
• 41 days listening to radio
• A little over a week on the Internet in 2007
• Adults will spend about a week reading a daily newspaper
• Teens and adults will spend another week listening to recorded music
• Consumer spending for media is forecasted to be $936.75 per person

What was interesting about this was noticing the gap that still exists between TV and Radio consumption and time spent on the Internet. To me, it's indicative of the nature of engagement, at least for now.

According to these stats, we will spend 10X the amount of time in front of a television than we will spend in front of a computer cruising the Internet. The media release didn't elaborate on the nature of time spent on the Internet. Does this mean work time as well?

Given these numbers, one can understand why the lion's share of ad budgets still go to television, and I expect that TV sales execs will gleefully quote these given every possible opportunity. But consider the following:

• The consumption of entertainment content online is in it's infancy. Strike that, it's actually embroyonic. If YouTube is the barometer of where we're at, we have an immense way to go. All the hype about online video is still largely centered around viral growth amongst very early adopters who are watching amateur videos less than 3 minutes in length. It's not the actual current  impact of online video that's creating buzz, it's the paradigm shifting that we have to do when we consider the democratization of content creation, the searchability of the digital format and the interactive possibilities that come with the online distribution channel.  All these things speak to a totally new experience. We're just not there yet.
  
• Think about the difference in your engagement level when you're interacting with the Internet, as opposed to passively watching TV or listening to the radio. Think about how you respond to advertising messaging, especially when it's relevant to the task you're pursuing. The influence of this difference in engagement on consumers hasn't been quantified yet, but at a gut level, we know it should be significant, probably a quantum leap in effectiveness. Actually, the numbers drive this home. In the research that's been done on the impact of various channels on consumers, the Internet consistently ranks near the top, usually right after word of mouth, and much higher than television. And it has this impact with one tenth of the exposure time.
  
• We need time to change our habits. Television watching has been ingrained in our daily routine for decades. Radio for a bit longer. Newspapers for centuries. The Internet is just celebrating its first decade as a widely accessible channel, and high speed access is less than 5 years old. Given that, the one week number is actually quite remarkable.

I'm sure these numbers will be quoted often, and spun in drastically different directions, depending on who's doing the spinning. At first glance, my thought was "only one week?". But as I thought about it, the numbers just emphasized the vast potential of online. What will be fascinating is to revisit this in a year's time and see how these numbers change. In Internet terms, 12 months is an eternity.

I was just doing some year end cleaning of my "to be blogged about" folder and found a couple of lingering items from a few months back. While most of that time, that would make them hopelessly outdated, these two touch on a bigger theme that is still relevant, and is aligned strategically to a book I just finished re-reading.

First, the here-to-fore neglected articles. Did-It's Bill Wise wrote a Search Insider column on how Google wins by losing, and John Markoff at the NY Times talked about the concern over "Google Sprawl".  Both talk about Google's strategy of pushing into new businesses at a frantic rate, seemingly trying to reinvent everything at the same time. But they take slightly different approaches. Bill's opinion is that the strategy works because the string of new challenges, and the many subsequent failures, continually generates buzz for Google that keeps driving it's main revenue channel, search. The NY Times reports on recently voiced Google concerns that the myriad of new initiatives will confuse users and impact the user trust in the Google brand. It also touches on the implied conundrum that comes with Google's goal to integrate functionality into a simple and elegant interface, making it the online Swiss Army Knife, and it's desire to keep user data open, steering away from the Microsoft approach that landed them in hot water with the Department of Justice. The timing of both pieces was right around the Google acquisition of Youtube.

There's a bigger piece here that seems to be missing from both viewpoints. Let's look at Wise's assertion first:

"By continually announcing that it's expanding beyond search, Google gains tremendous buzz, which translates into higher stock prices, which translates into still more buzz. All that attention keeps Google top-of-mind; by being top-of-mind, Google draws more users and more loyalty towards the Google brand--which means more searchers flock to Google Search, and more searchers stick with it. And it's through Google Search that Google actually makes its money.

All that buzz is only beneficial if the new launches don't succeed. If Google were to successfully expand past search, users would mistrust it as a corporate giant bent on empire-building--a problem that's certainly familiar to Microsoft. Because Google fails at really getting a hold beyond search, users don't see any effects of Google's empire-building, and instead only see Google as a company that's continually on the rise."

The problem here is that Wise is confusing strategy and a by product of an approach that's baked right into Google's corporate DNA. I really don't believe Google is purposely trying to fuel the buzz machine by venturing into areas with low odds for success. I believe Google does this because they don't know any other way. It's part of their genetic code.

Next, John Markoff starts to uncover the clues that point to the bigger picture:

"Google executives generally answer questions about acquisitions by saying that the company is still experimenting with business plans, or by arguing that a program like Sketch-Up — a simple computer-aided design program — will have an indirect revenue impact by making the entire Google service more valuable."

To be sure, the culture of grass roots innovation that has been scrupulously nurtured at Google is at the same time it's greatest strength and it's greatest challenge. And despite the fact that Google is being hailed as a pioneer, it's ground that has been trodden before. Google is hardly the first to go down this path. Which brings me to my renewed acquaintance with Jim Collin's and Jerry Porras's book Built to Last.

The Google mandate that a percentage of their engineer's time be set aside to work on new, cool and cutting edge products is a chapter that was stolen right out of 3M's playbook. And 3M, like HP, like Sony, like Motorola and like many of the other visionary companies profiled in Built to Last, started without a business plan. These companies worried first about the who, and then worried about the what. Google is clearly following in the same footsteps.

In fact, in the book, Collins and Porras show how visionary companies often "try a lot of stuff and keep what works". Here is a pertinent quote from the book:

"Visionary companies make some of their best moves by experimentation, trial and error, opportunism, and - quite literally - accident. What looks in retrospect like brilliant foresight and preplanning was often the result of "Let's just try a lot of stuff and keep what works."

Collins and Porras devote a whole chapter to the topic. They show how many iconic corporations struggled, often for years, before they found the right business model. Google has a leg up on these, as they already have a very successful cash cow that's driving their ability to "try a lot of stuff". And it's one notable area where Collins and Porras offer a different viewpoint from previous seminal works, including Tom Peters' and Bob Waterman's In Search of Excellence. Peters and Waterman advocate "Sticking to the knitting", warning "the odds for excellent performance seems strongly to favor those companies that stay reasonably close to the businesses they know."  Collins and Porras counter that if that were always the case, 3M would still be trying to run mines in Minnesota, HP would be selling nothing but audio oscillators and American Express would still be a delivery service.

The challenge for Google comes in not impacting the user, as Markoff identified in his article. Ironically, it comes from Google's initial success in search. If Google search wasn't as successful as it is, Google would have free reign to experiment. But they have to pay scrupulous attention to the user experience. I've commented before that Google's biggest obstacle as a visionary company is it's early success.

Here, Google is faced with the Yin and Yang challenge that faces all visionary companies. How to preserve the core while at the same time stimulate progress? And this gets down to a fundamental place where Google might be veering off track. Google's core purpose, and the one that Google search succeeds very well at, is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.  This should be what the company scrupulously protects. All of Google's free time initiatives should be aligned to that core purpose. But Google seems to be trying to pursue a number of core items at the same time. Redefining how advertising is bought and sold (recent forays into print and radio) seems to have little to do with Google's stated core purpose. Controlling the main intersections of the new online global community (the purchase of YouTube) might be tangentially related, but clear alignment is not apparent. If Google stuck to their initial core purpose, that gives them scads of room for growth and innovation.

If Google is going to pursue a grassroots culture of innovation, that's admirable. If they want to try experimenting in a number of areas and see what succeeds, while at the same time pruning out the failures, they can take comfort in knowing that strategy worked well in the past, notably for 3M. But to go down this path, it's essential that an overarching core purpose be defined and communicated clearly to each and every Google employee. Innovation has to be aligned with a common goal. And when companies try to identify more than one core purpose, they can lose direction. Google might be well advised to see how other trailblazers have handled this in the past. For example, the core purpose of 3M is to solve problems through technology. While it's broad and all encompassing, it does provide a sense of direction for 3M employees.

If I was to identify one challenge for Google to face in 2007, it would not be the fragmenting their business model, or even defining one. It would not be nailing another surefire revenue channel. It would be deciding, clearly and unequivocally, what they want to do, communicating the hell out of that internally and by doing that, point all that formidable brainpower in one direction.