It has been coming for a while now, google are going to begin trialling coast per action advertising across its content network with publishers only receiving revenue when a specified action is completed. This makes the content network more appealing to advertisers and as the article suggests removes the temptation for click fraud. I believe more work is needed in order to make this a reality but as suggested in the article this spells trouble for other ad schemes working on a cost per action basis.
Google Tests Pay-per-Action and In-Text Ads
Google is testing, on a limited basis, a pay-per-action ad form that ties publisher payment to a specific action by those who click the ad, reports ClickZ. Advertisers define the action - an actual sale, signing up for more information or something else - and the publisher on whose site the ad appears would be paid only when that action is completed. Though that means publishers don't get paid as frequently as in pay-per-click ads, the PPA model usually results in higher single payments.
Publishers will have more flexibility in choosing the ads that run and in encouraging visitors to take action on the ad. That sort of encouragement has been forbidden by Google as part of the AdSense terms of service (TOS) for other ads.
Michael Arrington at TechCrunch points out that a move to PPA model lowers advertisers' potential exposure to click fraud, since they would only pay when a specific action is taken and not when an ad is clicked (a click is easily automated). He also predicts that this will have a severe and negative impact on ad networks already operating on a PPA model simply because they can't compete with Google in terms of scale of reach.
Arrington also catches a smaller announcement in the Google AdWords blog post announcing the PPA test. Google will begin testing in-text ads, similar to those already offered by Intellitext and others. When visitors to a site running these sorts of ads mouse over the linked text, a box appears with the ad displayed along with "Ads by Google" text.
This would be the first ad offering by Google to break out of the separate ad box and into the text of the site's content.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Mobile Marketing Adoption
Interesting article on the adoption of mobile marketing. US based buts gives some insight into how the market will need to adapt in order to realise its potential.
Incentives Key to Mobile Marketing MARCH 21, 2007 How hated is the thought of mobile marketing?
In theory, very hated.
Most people (90%) say that they are not at all interested in getting ads on their mobile phones, according to Harris Interactive.
Need to keep up-to-date with trends in online marketing and emerging media? In theory, that leaves less than 10% of users as an audience for mobile marketing.
In practice, the audience is much larger. As with any medium, once mobile ads are associated with something of value, user interest shoots up. If incentives are involved, it shoots up considerably.
Think about the Internet a decade ago. There was still some debate as to whether companies should be on the Web at all — would corporate influence stifle the free flow of ideas on the fresh new medium? Once companies did move online, consumers were initially reluctant to give out personal information. It took incentives and opt-in agreements to overcome their hesitance.
Right now, mobile is the only interactive medium where the typical user pays for both the cost of network access and the content it delivers. Mobile operators and content providers are finding that besides early adopters and enthusiasts, it is tough to find buyers for paid mobile music downloads, let alone video and games.
Introducing mobile advertising into the revenue mix changes the picture. Many users say that they would be willing to receive mobile marketing in exchange for incentives, so offering free applications, subsidized airtime or other goodies makes sense.
Over a third of adult mobile phone users say that they are willing to accept incentive-based advertisements. Of these, 78% say the best incentive would be cash. Other incentives that resonate include free minutes, free entertainment downloads and discount coupons.
As for ad formats, over half (56%) of those who are at least somewhat interested in receiving ads on their cellphones say they would prefer to receive them as text messages, while 40% would like to receive them as picture messages. Less than a quarter of adults would choose to receive them as videos, while others would have them sent as e-mail, voice mail or something else.
eMarketer estimates that mobile ad spending in the US will reach $4.8 billion by 2011, up from $421 million in 2006.
eMarketer senior analyst and mobile specialist John du Pre Gauntt says that current mobile business models practically beg for an infusion of ad dollars.
"Despite the best efforts to convince people otherwise, there is no mobility 'premium,'" says Mr. Gauntt. "Over time, the justification for charging a 100%-300% markup on a piece of content or service simply because it is delivered over a radio channel will not wash when the same content is available online to be synched with a handset."
Incentives Key to Mobile Marketing MARCH 21, 2007 How hated is the thought of mobile marketing?
In theory, very hated.
Most people (90%) say that they are not at all interested in getting ads on their mobile phones, according to Harris Interactive.
Need to keep up-to-date with trends in online marketing and emerging media? In theory, that leaves less than 10% of users as an audience for mobile marketing.
In practice, the audience is much larger. As with any medium, once mobile ads are associated with something of value, user interest shoots up. If incentives are involved, it shoots up considerably.
Think about the Internet a decade ago. There was still some debate as to whether companies should be on the Web at all — would corporate influence stifle the free flow of ideas on the fresh new medium? Once companies did move online, consumers were initially reluctant to give out personal information. It took incentives and opt-in agreements to overcome their hesitance.
Right now, mobile is the only interactive medium where the typical user pays for both the cost of network access and the content it delivers. Mobile operators and content providers are finding that besides early adopters and enthusiasts, it is tough to find buyers for paid mobile music downloads, let alone video and games.
Introducing mobile advertising into the revenue mix changes the picture. Many users say that they would be willing to receive mobile marketing in exchange for incentives, so offering free applications, subsidized airtime or other goodies makes sense.
Over a third of adult mobile phone users say that they are willing to accept incentive-based advertisements. Of these, 78% say the best incentive would be cash. Other incentives that resonate include free minutes, free entertainment downloads and discount coupons.
As for ad formats, over half (56%) of those who are at least somewhat interested in receiving ads on their cellphones say they would prefer to receive them as text messages, while 40% would like to receive them as picture messages. Less than a quarter of adults would choose to receive them as videos, while others would have them sent as e-mail, voice mail or something else.
eMarketer estimates that mobile ad spending in the US will reach $4.8 billion by 2011, up from $421 million in 2006.
eMarketer senior analyst and mobile specialist John du Pre Gauntt says that current mobile business models practically beg for an infusion of ad dollars.
"Despite the best efforts to convince people otherwise, there is no mobility 'premium,'" says Mr. Gauntt. "Over time, the justification for charging a 100%-300% markup on a piece of content or service simply because it is delivered over a radio channel will not wash when the same content is available online to be synched with a handset."
the hunt for search engine innovation part 2
Are any of the search engines below the future of search as we know it? we have been lacking a little innovation for a while and I would welcome a new contender. Some of those listed are more gimmicky than anything else and arent going to be scaleable as a business but that doesnt mean there arent a few little gems in here which could be utilised by one of the big guns to improve their results.
The Hunt for Search Engine Innovation, Part 2 by David Berkowitz, Tuesday, March 20, 2007
GOOGLE SHOULDN'T REST on its laurels just yet. Last week, we blazed through Charles Knight's Top 100 Alternative Search Engines and found many areas where innovation was lacking. This week, we'll visit some of the high-impact innovation categories and engines.
Sorting the engines into categories isn't a perfect science, as many engines are hybrids. URL.com is a meta-search engine combined with user rankings, Ujiko combines a graphic display with user ratings, Exalead combines category filtering with image search, and Polymeta is a metasearch engine with filtering based on keywords and categories that also includes vertical and multimedia search. Don't try too hard to sort it all out; by and large the most impressive engines have a clearer value proposition. Let's see what they're made of.
High-Impact Engines
Vertical niches: Goshme, discussed last week, aims to aggregate all vertical engines in one place. On the Top 100 list, the most innovative vertical search engine is Like.com. Microsoft's recent Medstory acquisition also signals that the major engines are watching the vertical startups.
After last week's column, Jessi Zambrano wrote about Indeed.com, a job metasearch engine not included on Mr. Knight's Top 100 list. Job search engines have been among the most successful innovators, and they've also been among the priciest search-related acquisitions. Searching for jobs is also one of the few search activities that truly matters to consumers' lives. Compare shopping search ("I want a good deal on something I plan on buying") with job search ("I want a new/better job"), health search ("I'm trying to diagnose/care for myself or a loved one"), and dating search ("I'm lonely"/"I want to start a family"). The latter three categories really matter, so expect search pioneers to emerge from them. I'd include some kind of food search in that bunch, but once you're online, searching for food is generally not a matter of fulfilling primal necessities but finding a decent takeout joint.
Multimedia search: Here's where there's the most need for improvement, and several startups have a leg up on the major engines -- for now. The Top 100 list includes just a few examples of multimedia search engines, and they focus on video. Blabline is simply a Google Custom Search Engine. Clipblast bills itself as the world's largest video search engine, though I'm not sure how it defends the title (my bet: the honor goes to YouTube, MySpace, or most likely Google). Blinkx has the most momentum, and it's a favorite of Search Insider columnists; Aaron Goldman recently wondered if Google should buy Blinkx, and I predicted back in January 2005 that it was a ripe acquisition target.
Semantic Web: It's getting harder and harder to write about any form of Internet innovation without factoring in the semantic web. John Markoff recently covered the topic in The New York Times, and by the time the Times gets to reporting on technology, you know it's old news. The one semantic engine on the Top 100 list is Swoogle, a database impenetrable to anyone without a computer science degree (I can, however, tell you the difference between a rondeau and a villanelle).
That Swoogle is hard to parse is in a way ironic, as the gist of the semantic Web, to oversimplify it, is to provide a way for all forms of online content to better understand themselves and each other. For instance, if a search engine or other content site were to index or link to this column through the lens of the semantic Web, it would know that this column has everything to do with search engine innovation and nothing to do with obscure forms of poetry. It would also realize that Aaron Goldman is an esteemed MediaPost columnist and not this septuagenarian who has jogged 200 miles in 72 hours, and it would surely never mistake me for the more infamous individual who shares my name. In the most utopian visions for the semantic Web, such as those shared at a DoubleClick Industry Insighters Salon earlier this month, the Web will be so adept at understanding your own interests and wants that you won't need to search for anything at all.
That's one of those beautiful ideals, to become so good that you make yourself irrelevant. Could we really get there one day with search?
It's unlikely. Even if any form of search became that good, we're still hunters and gatherers at heart. We'll always want the empowerment of thinking that searching is a skill, and if the right result is presented to us, we'll take the credit, even if a computer programmer or algorithm actually made it happen. That means that the ideal search engine of the future, the standard every engine should shoot for that truly gives consumers what they want, will be one step shy of perfection.
The Hunt for Search Engine Innovation, Part 2 by David Berkowitz, Tuesday, March 20, 2007
GOOGLE SHOULDN'T REST on its laurels just yet. Last week, we blazed through Charles Knight's Top 100 Alternative Search Engines and found many areas where innovation was lacking. This week, we'll visit some of the high-impact innovation categories and engines.
Sorting the engines into categories isn't a perfect science, as many engines are hybrids. URL.com is a meta-search engine combined with user rankings, Ujiko combines a graphic display with user ratings, Exalead combines category filtering with image search, and Polymeta is a metasearch engine with filtering based on keywords and categories that also includes vertical and multimedia search. Don't try too hard to sort it all out; by and large the most impressive engines have a clearer value proposition. Let's see what they're made of.
High-Impact Engines
Vertical niches: Goshme, discussed last week, aims to aggregate all vertical engines in one place. On the Top 100 list, the most innovative vertical search engine is Like.com. Microsoft's recent Medstory acquisition also signals that the major engines are watching the vertical startups.
After last week's column, Jessi Zambrano wrote about Indeed.com, a job metasearch engine not included on Mr. Knight's Top 100 list. Job search engines have been among the most successful innovators, and they've also been among the priciest search-related acquisitions. Searching for jobs is also one of the few search activities that truly matters to consumers' lives. Compare shopping search ("I want a good deal on something I plan on buying") with job search ("I want a new/better job"), health search ("I'm trying to diagnose/care for myself or a loved one"), and dating search ("I'm lonely"/"I want to start a family"). The latter three categories really matter, so expect search pioneers to emerge from them. I'd include some kind of food search in that bunch, but once you're online, searching for food is generally not a matter of fulfilling primal necessities but finding a decent takeout joint.
Multimedia search: Here's where there's the most need for improvement, and several startups have a leg up on the major engines -- for now. The Top 100 list includes just a few examples of multimedia search engines, and they focus on video. Blabline is simply a Google Custom Search Engine. Clipblast bills itself as the world's largest video search engine, though I'm not sure how it defends the title (my bet: the honor goes to YouTube, MySpace, or most likely Google). Blinkx has the most momentum, and it's a favorite of Search Insider columnists; Aaron Goldman recently wondered if Google should buy Blinkx, and I predicted back in January 2005 that it was a ripe acquisition target.
Semantic Web: It's getting harder and harder to write about any form of Internet innovation without factoring in the semantic web. John Markoff recently covered the topic in The New York Times, and by the time the Times gets to reporting on technology, you know it's old news. The one semantic engine on the Top 100 list is Swoogle, a database impenetrable to anyone without a computer science degree (I can, however, tell you the difference between a rondeau and a villanelle).
That Swoogle is hard to parse is in a way ironic, as the gist of the semantic Web, to oversimplify it, is to provide a way for all forms of online content to better understand themselves and each other. For instance, if a search engine or other content site were to index or link to this column through the lens of the semantic Web, it would know that this column has everything to do with search engine innovation and nothing to do with obscure forms of poetry. It would also realize that Aaron Goldman is an esteemed MediaPost columnist and not this septuagenarian who has jogged 200 miles in 72 hours, and it would surely never mistake me for the more infamous individual who shares my name. In the most utopian visions for the semantic Web, such as those shared at a DoubleClick Industry Insighters Salon earlier this month, the Web will be so adept at understanding your own interests and wants that you won't need to search for anything at all.
That's one of those beautiful ideals, to become so good that you make yourself irrelevant. Could we really get there one day with search?
It's unlikely. Even if any form of search became that good, we're still hunters and gatherers at heart. We'll always want the empowerment of thinking that searching is a skill, and if the right result is presented to us, we'll take the credit, even if a computer programmer or algorithm actually made it happen. That means that the ideal search engine of the future, the standard every engine should shoot for that truly gives consumers what they want, will be one step shy of perfection.
The Importance of Brand
In a recent bizreport article travelocity's CMO Jeffrey Glueck made the observation that in PPC "most of your profits come from buying your own brand term". No kidding! This is a basic principle of search marketing and one which is a constant area of discussion between agencies and clients. In a market such as travel where competition is high and price is everything building a strong brand is essential to your success. Glueck goes on to say he is "dismissive" of the approach of buying a large range of generic terms in a PPC campaign. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this dismissal and say that in my experience of managing travel campaigns it is essential to hold whole range of generic spcific and brand terms in your campaign. Due to the price sensitivity of the travel market search engine user go through a number fo research stages before deciding upon a purchase, they will research different countries, followed by regions of a country and then hotels within a region before finally searching out the cheapest price for their chosen destination. In the final comparison stage they are likely to take note of the cheapest site they find during their search before returning through a brand search. Hence it is importnat to have a presence at each stage of the buying process in order to have a chance of getting the sale. Full article is below, make your own mind up!
article here
article here
Monday, March 26, 2007
Microsoft Search Share Troubles
Microsoft down an out? dont count on it. Im as frustrated as anyone about the little impact Microsft have had on the search market since their launch last year. They claim that they are working on getting their product right before openeing the floodgates (Im not sure its quite that simple!). Theres no doubt they provide quality traffic that converts great but theres just not enough of it and until these figures show that they are not even growing with the market. They had better do something soon or they will be too far behind to catch up.
Microsoft Search Share Troubles
Business Week Online just put out an article about the troubles that Microsoft is having in capturing search market share. According to the story, Microsoft had a search market share in February of 2005 of 14%.
Two years later that share has dropped to 9.6%. In the same time period Google's market share went from 46% to 56%. Clearly things have gone in the wrong direction for Microsoft. The article also details the changes in Microsoft's executive team, and the trouble they had with re branding everything to Live Search.
These have surely contributed to the problems in growing their market share, but I believe the major problem has been the continued excellence in execution by Google. This has just left very little room to capture new users.
I think people should be careful though to not rush to the conclusion that Microsoft is done. All signs are that Microsoft recognizes that there is no more strategic area for them to focus on. In addition, Microsoft is a company with huge cash reserves. While it may be frustrating to have to be patient, they do have the ability to do just that.
In addition, an increasing number of innovative tools are being implemented by Microsoft within the MSN AdCenter Labs. I wrote about one of these recently, the MSN Search Funnels, which allow you to see what terms people search for both before and after your keywords. It's an incredibly cool tool.
This is but one example of innovations from Microsoft that show that they are going to keep pushing new stuff out there. And this really is the key for them - to show technological leadership through the implementation of tools that makes things easier for advertisers, publishers, and most importantly of all, end users. Don't count Microsoft out yet.
Microsoft Search Share Troubles
Business Week Online just put out an article about the troubles that Microsoft is having in capturing search market share. According to the story, Microsoft had a search market share in February of 2005 of 14%.
Two years later that share has dropped to 9.6%. In the same time period Google's market share went from 46% to 56%. Clearly things have gone in the wrong direction for Microsoft. The article also details the changes in Microsoft's executive team, and the trouble they had with re branding everything to Live Search.
These have surely contributed to the problems in growing their market share, but I believe the major problem has been the continued excellence in execution by Google. This has just left very little room to capture new users.
I think people should be careful though to not rush to the conclusion that Microsoft is done. All signs are that Microsoft recognizes that there is no more strategic area for them to focus on. In addition, Microsoft is a company with huge cash reserves. While it may be frustrating to have to be patient, they do have the ability to do just that.
In addition, an increasing number of innovative tools are being implemented by Microsoft within the MSN AdCenter Labs. I wrote about one of these recently, the MSN Search Funnels, which allow you to see what terms people search for both before and after your keywords. It's an incredibly cool tool.
This is but one example of innovations from Microsoft that show that they are going to keep pushing new stuff out there. And this really is the key for them - to show technological leadership through the implementation of tools that makes things easier for advertisers, publishers, and most importantly of all, end users. Don't count Microsoft out yet.
Monday, March 19, 2007
technorati
I cant belive the cheeky so and so's use this as a way to get a link to their website!
Technorati Profile
Technorati Profile
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Report: Mobile ads are more accepted
interesting information on the acceptance of mobile ads and the need for them to be appropriately targetted. nothing ground breaking but it at least puts some figures on the acceptance level.
Report: Mobile ads are more accepted
There is good news for mobile advertisers. A new report from Harris Interactive shows increasing acceptance of mobile ads. Correctly targeted ads to users will only increase the acceptance level according to the report. The bad news? Incorrectly targeted the ads will likely only annoy the user.
"According to our research, cell phone users are more willing than ever to receive advertising," said Judith Ricker, President of the Marketing Communications Research Practice at Harris Interactive. "To make their mobile campaigns more effective, advertisers should take note of how cell phone users are most interested in being contacted." Mobile ads should also be relevant, have a clear call to action and let users control how they are profiled according to the study.
According to the study 90% of mobile users are uninterested in receiving ads, however, it shows that if the ads are properly targeted only 64% are uninterested. What this means is that demographic, ad type and the offer are the keys to continued ad acceptance.
Younger demographics (men and women between 18 and 39 years old) are most receptive to mobile ads if the ads offer something of interest - cash, free phone minutes, etc. Older users (40 to 49 years old) are least interested in mobile ads. Income also changes how ads are seen. For the income range of $125,000 to $149,000, only about 13% of users are interested in mobile ads.
Report: Mobile ads are more accepted
There is good news for mobile advertisers. A new report from Harris Interactive shows increasing acceptance of mobile ads. Correctly targeted ads to users will only increase the acceptance level according to the report. The bad news? Incorrectly targeted the ads will likely only annoy the user.
"According to our research, cell phone users are more willing than ever to receive advertising," said Judith Ricker, President of the Marketing Communications Research Practice at Harris Interactive. "To make their mobile campaigns more effective, advertisers should take note of how cell phone users are most interested in being contacted." Mobile ads should also be relevant, have a clear call to action and let users control how they are profiled according to the study.
According to the study 90% of mobile users are uninterested in receiving ads, however, it shows that if the ads are properly targeted only 64% are uninterested. What this means is that demographic, ad type and the offer are the keys to continued ad acceptance.
Younger demographics (men and women between 18 and 39 years old) are most receptive to mobile ads if the ads offer something of interest - cash, free phone minutes, etc. Older users (40 to 49 years old) are least interested in mobile ads. Income also changes how ads are seen. For the income range of $125,000 to $149,000, only about 13% of users are interested in mobile ads.
A Change in Demographic?
In a study recently carried out by a group of womens monthly magazines and involving the opinion of over 4000 women over 70% of the repondents claimed that they could no longer live without the internet. This is a staggering figure when you consider the traditional view of the internet user. The vast majority of the users stated their internet usage had increased over the past year and according to the article this was to the detriment of TV and newspapers.
Read the article here
Read the article here
Microsoft Buys TellMe, Voice-Activated Mobile Search Provider
The Purchases of google and Microsoft give a great indication of the way they see the market moving. This article tells of Microsoft's recent purchase of TellMe, a provider of voice activated search technology. No prizes for guessing that this ties in with the markets interest in mobile search. Everyone appears to be fighting to be the best equipped for when the mobile market takes off. Apparently 2007 will be the year for the adoption of the technology and 2008 will be the year it takes off. I still remain to be convinced about the extent of mobiles emergance but one thing is for sure this wont be the last of the purchases in this market in 2007.
Microsoft Buys TellMe, Voice-Activated Mobile Search Provider
by Shankar Gupta, Thursday, Mar 15, 2007 6:00 AM ET
MICROSOFT FINALIZED A DEAL WEDNESDAY to purchase TellMe, a directory assistance provider and voice-activated mobile search firm, giving Redmond a possible edge in the race to develop a better mobile search tool.
Greg Sterling, principal of Sterling Marketing Intelligence, said that despite the manual dexterity mobile search users are developing, using a tiny keyboard still offers a sub-par user experience.
"There's still usability problems that are pretty significant," he said. "Keying in search queries is awkward. This is really about improving usability, and driving consumer adoption."
Microsoft is reportedly purchasing the voice-recognition and directory assistance technology firm for between $800 million and $1 billion. A statement released by Microsoft specifically called out "search services on mobile phones that integrate with Live Search for mobile offerings" as an area of interest between the two companies.
Microsoft Buys TellMe, Voice-Activated Mobile Search Provider
by Shankar Gupta, Thursday, Mar 15, 2007 6:00 AM ET
MICROSOFT FINALIZED A DEAL WEDNESDAY to purchase TellMe, a directory assistance provider and voice-activated mobile search firm, giving Redmond a possible edge in the race to develop a better mobile search tool.
Greg Sterling, principal of Sterling Marketing Intelligence, said that despite the manual dexterity mobile search users are developing, using a tiny keyboard still offers a sub-par user experience.
"There's still usability problems that are pretty significant," he said. "Keying in search queries is awkward. This is really about improving usability, and driving consumer adoption."
Microsoft is reportedly purchasing the voice-recognition and directory assistance technology firm for between $800 million and $1 billion. A statement released by Microsoft specifically called out "search services on mobile phones that integrate with Live Search for mobile offerings" as an area of interest between the two companies.
Microsoft's adCenter content ads expanded
apparently micorsoft is planning to expand its content offering and also the use of adcenter. verticalisation of the content network is essential if it is going to survive and be a useful medium in search marketing. google have done it through site targetting, miva are planning on completely restructuring around it and now microsoft is looking to follow suit. The obvious result of this (or what they will tell you) is much more targetted traffic. this has not been seen yet on Miva's precision network (and costs have risen!) but if it is done well I can see it working. In the majority of markets though it will always be the poor relation to the main search network. It is still open to fraud and I still question whether unless a user is actively searching that they have a high enough propensity to click and ad and then ultimately convert through the website.
Microsoft's adCenter content ads expanded
Advertisers looking for a better way to control and influence their online advertising efforts are going to get some help from Microsoft. Looking to increase how online marketers interact with their ad serving software, the company is expanding their adCenter offerings. According to reports, the expansion will give advertisers more control over online campaigns.
by Kristina Knight
The expansion will also give advertisers more outlets within the canopy of the MSN network.
MSN's networks like Health and Fitness, Tech and Gadgets, Travel and Money currently house the majority of content ads from advertisers. With the new system, advertisers will control which networks show their ads, even going so far as to determine which specific content pages the ads appear upon. They will also be able to determine whether or not to allow ads within Windows Live Search results pages.
Advertisers can choose to run ads either on network content pages, on Live Search results pages or both. They can also track ad sales results from each platform.
There is no word when or if the content ads will be offered outside the Microsoft Network umbrella, but the potential to offer advertisers specialized ads on other platforms, like through Yahoo's Panama platform or through Google's AdSense platform is possible.
Microsoft's adCenter content ads expanded
Advertisers looking for a better way to control and influence their online advertising efforts are going to get some help from Microsoft. Looking to increase how online marketers interact with their ad serving software, the company is expanding their adCenter offerings. According to reports, the expansion will give advertisers more control over online campaigns.
by Kristina Knight
The expansion will also give advertisers more outlets within the canopy of the MSN network.
MSN's networks like Health and Fitness, Tech and Gadgets, Travel and Money currently house the majority of content ads from advertisers. With the new system, advertisers will control which networks show their ads, even going so far as to determine which specific content pages the ads appear upon. They will also be able to determine whether or not to allow ads within Windows Live Search results pages.
Advertisers can choose to run ads either on network content pages, on Live Search results pages or both. They can also track ad sales results from each platform.
There is no word when or if the content ads will be offered outside the Microsoft Network umbrella, but the potential to offer advertisers specialized ads on other platforms, like through Yahoo's Panama platform or through Google's AdSense platform is possible.
Friday, March 16, 2007
smaller players to benefit from viacom lawsuit?
is the fallout between google and viacom a route to market for smaller online video providers who are willing to play by the rules? personally I think whatever the outcome Youtube has a bg enough grip on the market to hold its share. That is unless people start pulling all their content which could be a problem. individual users will be slower to boycott however and these are the best videos anyway arent they? fat guys dancing, practical jokes, hidden cameras...priceless!
Viacom/Google Fallout: Prime Time For Smaller Competitors To Woo Content Partners
by Shankar Gupta, Wednesday, Mar 14, 2007 6:00 AM ET
IT'S PRIME TIME FOR SMALLER video players to step in and make content partnerships as relations between Google and traditional media companies grow increasingly frosty. That was the assessment of industry watchers in the wake of the $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit filed Tuesday by Viacom against the search giant and its subsidiary YouTube.
Viacom is likely to seek out other partners who are more responsive in developing strategies to pay media companies whose content appears on their sites, said Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey. "They think they've waited long enough for Google and YouTube," he said. "What they're going to do is work aggressively to get distribution everywhere else."
Citing a major deal with YouTube rival Joost and smaller initiatives that allow small site owners to create custom clips of Viacom content and syndicate them on their Web sites, McQuivey said that major media companies' dissatisfaction with Google-YouTube is an opportunity for up-and-coming players.
Viacom/Google Fallout: Prime Time For Smaller Competitors To Woo Content Partners
by Shankar Gupta, Wednesday, Mar 14, 2007 6:00 AM ET
IT'S PRIME TIME FOR SMALLER video players to step in and make content partnerships as relations between Google and traditional media companies grow increasingly frosty. That was the assessment of industry watchers in the wake of the $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit filed Tuesday by Viacom against the search giant and its subsidiary YouTube.
Viacom is likely to seek out other partners who are more responsive in developing strategies to pay media companies whose content appears on their sites, said Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey. "They think they've waited long enough for Google and YouTube," he said. "What they're going to do is work aggressively to get distribution everywhere else."
Citing a major deal with YouTube rival Joost and smaller initiatives that allow small site owners to create custom clips of Viacom content and syndicate them on their Web sites, McQuivey said that major media companies' dissatisfaction with Google-YouTube is an opportunity for up-and-coming players.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Hunt for Search Engine Innovation, Part 1
This topic is one which greatly interests me, what is the future of search? Ive posted before at my disappointment with everyone’s desire to be Google and not better than Google. Through innovation comes change and I would like to think one of these categorise below represents the future of search engine evolution. Only problem is Im not sure which yet!!!
According to the metasearch engine GoshMe, there are more than 500,000 search engines. That’s more than one for every resident of Albuquerque, New Mexico. I dare you to search them all. If anyone will accomplish the task, it’s Charles Knight, a search engine optimizer who has made a name for himself publishing monthly lists of the Top 100 Alternative Search Engines.
I’ve attempted a number of grueling feats in my day. In college, I won a challenge to see who could eat the most Deadly Chocolate Sins, a rich, fudgy, warm brownie served at Applebee’s, and I subsequently learned that along with a sugar high, there’s also such thing as a sugar hangover. I am also one of few men who will admit to having endured watching nearly every episode of “The Real Housewives of the O.C.” (the things men do for love). The weekend I spent sorting through all of the Top 100 search engines wasn’t quite so demanding as brownie-eating or “Housewives”-watching, but it was up there.
With all these search engines, and I have no doubt that the 100 Mr. Knight compiled were truly among the best, I was mining them to explore where the real innovation lies. What aspects of all these engines will improve the search experience for users over the years ahead? Even if none of these are the next Google, Yahoo, or Windows Live Search, are there diamonds in the rough that can be polished and adapted into the major engines’ algorithms and results pages?
For the most part, the answer is no.
The engines on the Top 100 list can be segmented into a handful of categories, and those categories can be further divided based on which ones will have a low impact on innovation, and which ones will matter most the rest of the decade. This week, we’ll look at the low-impact categories, and then next week we’ll see which categories are more promising.
Low-Impact Engines
§ Clustering/graphic display: These engines organize search results in some sort of visual field. Quintura’s among the best of these, and it’s potentially useful for academics and brand managers, but I don’t get the benefit for general consumers. Gnod clusters results based on specific subjects, yet Amazon’s recommendations are usually more than sufficient.
§ Filtering based on categories/recommended keywords: This is one feature especially common in vertical search, but it’s also being used by other engines such as Factbites. If that’s the predominant feature, it’s not going to be incredibly useful, as it’s already being used by other engines, notably Ask.com and Windows Live Search.
§ Metasearch/aggregated search: These engines search multiple sites at once or individually. Dogpile, Mamma, and Goshme all are variations on the metasearch theme, while engines like FindForward allow more features for searching select sites one by one. Even if these engines are useful at times, Dogpile and its ilk are icons of the Web’s past, not its future.
§ User-ratings/voting: VMGO lets users rank search results. I’m skeptical of the longevity of this approach, as it’s too easily gamed and too biased toward early adopters. If an algorithm’s that good for natural rankings, voting won’t matter, though the whole idea of a Digg-based search engine might gain some fleeting buzz.
§ Q&A: These engines, like Lexxe, aim to give you direct answers to your questions. For the post part, the innovation here has already happened, as Yahoo Answers emerged as one of the company’s biggest success stories in recent years while Google Answers folded. One of my favorite entrants in the Top 100, Ask Vox, falls into the Q&A category. Built on the Yahoo Answers API, Vox is a talking avatar who answers your questions, and you can add in your own answers when she falls short. For added fun, Vox says on her MySpace page that she’s going out with the retired Ask.com butler Jeeves. If you ask her directly if she’s in a relationship, she’ll confirm the tryst, though the two-timer also says she’s single if you press her.
Even though these categories are low-impact, some of these engines are innovative in their own way. Quintura keeps evolving and grows more useful with each iteration, Goshme is awe-inspiring with its breadth, and Vox was so much fun, I shared her with every visitor to my office last week.
But enough playing around. Next week, we’ll look to the engines and categories that will fuel the future of search innovation.
According to the metasearch engine GoshMe, there are more than 500,000 search engines. That’s more than one for every resident of Albuquerque, New Mexico. I dare you to search them all. If anyone will accomplish the task, it’s Charles Knight, a search engine optimizer who has made a name for himself publishing monthly lists of the Top 100 Alternative Search Engines.
I’ve attempted a number of grueling feats in my day. In college, I won a challenge to see who could eat the most Deadly Chocolate Sins, a rich, fudgy, warm brownie served at Applebee’s, and I subsequently learned that along with a sugar high, there’s also such thing as a sugar hangover. I am also one of few men who will admit to having endured watching nearly every episode of “The Real Housewives of the O.C.” (the things men do for love). The weekend I spent sorting through all of the Top 100 search engines wasn’t quite so demanding as brownie-eating or “Housewives”-watching, but it was up there.
With all these search engines, and I have no doubt that the 100 Mr. Knight compiled were truly among the best, I was mining them to explore where the real innovation lies. What aspects of all these engines will improve the search experience for users over the years ahead? Even if none of these are the next Google, Yahoo, or Windows Live Search, are there diamonds in the rough that can be polished and adapted into the major engines’ algorithms and results pages?
For the most part, the answer is no.
The engines on the Top 100 list can be segmented into a handful of categories, and those categories can be further divided based on which ones will have a low impact on innovation, and which ones will matter most the rest of the decade. This week, we’ll look at the low-impact categories, and then next week we’ll see which categories are more promising.
Low-Impact Engines
§ Clustering/graphic display: These engines organize search results in some sort of visual field. Quintura’s among the best of these, and it’s potentially useful for academics and brand managers, but I don’t get the benefit for general consumers. Gnod clusters results based on specific subjects, yet Amazon’s recommendations are usually more than sufficient.
§ Filtering based on categories/recommended keywords: This is one feature especially common in vertical search, but it’s also being used by other engines such as Factbites. If that’s the predominant feature, it’s not going to be incredibly useful, as it’s already being used by other engines, notably Ask.com and Windows Live Search.
§ Metasearch/aggregated search: These engines search multiple sites at once or individually. Dogpile, Mamma, and Goshme all are variations on the metasearch theme, while engines like FindForward allow more features for searching select sites one by one. Even if these engines are useful at times, Dogpile and its ilk are icons of the Web’s past, not its future.
§ User-ratings/voting: VMGO lets users rank search results. I’m skeptical of the longevity of this approach, as it’s too easily gamed and too biased toward early adopters. If an algorithm’s that good for natural rankings, voting won’t matter, though the whole idea of a Digg-based search engine might gain some fleeting buzz.
§ Q&A: These engines, like Lexxe, aim to give you direct answers to your questions. For the post part, the innovation here has already happened, as Yahoo Answers emerged as one of the company’s biggest success stories in recent years while Google Answers folded. One of my favorite entrants in the Top 100, Ask Vox, falls into the Q&A category. Built on the Yahoo Answers API, Vox is a talking avatar who answers your questions, and you can add in your own answers when she falls short. For added fun, Vox says on her MySpace page that she’s going out with the retired Ask.com butler Jeeves. If you ask her directly if she’s in a relationship, she’ll confirm the tryst, though the two-timer also says she’s single if you press her.
Even though these categories are low-impact, some of these engines are innovative in their own way. Quintura keeps evolving and grows more useful with each iteration, Goshme is awe-inspiring with its breadth, and Vox was so much fun, I shared her with every visitor to my office last week.
But enough playing around. Next week, we’ll look to the engines and categories that will fuel the future of search innovation.
The copyright war begins in earnest!
The war begins! Viacom file a $1 billion law suit against google for infingement of its copyrights through it Youtube property. Viacom also go one step further and accuse Youtube of deliberately avoiding doing anything to stop copyright infringement by its users in an attempt to earn revenues. Should be very interesting to see how this one pans out as it could set a precedent for the whole online video industry and if Viacom are successful everyone else will be sure to follow suit!
Viacom Slaps Google with $1B YouTube Lawsuit
Accusing YouTube of "massive intentional copyright infringement," media giant Viacom filed a $1 billion lawsuit Tuesday against the video site and its parent Google, CNET reports. Some 160,000 clips of Viacom programming have been illegally available on YouTube and have been viewed more than 1.5 billion times, Viacom said. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and also seeks an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from further copyright infringement."YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws," Viacom said in a statement."In fact, YouTube's strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site, thus generating significant traffic and revenues for itself while shifting the entire burden - and high cost - of monitoring YouTube onto the victims of its infringement," Viacom said in a statement.
Viacom Slaps Google with $1B YouTube Lawsuit
Accusing YouTube of "massive intentional copyright infringement," media giant Viacom filed a $1 billion lawsuit Tuesday against the video site and its parent Google, CNET reports. Some 160,000 clips of Viacom programming have been illegally available on YouTube and have been viewed more than 1.5 billion times, Viacom said. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and also seeks an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from further copyright infringement."YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws," Viacom said in a statement."In fact, YouTube's strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site, thus generating significant traffic and revenues for itself while shifting the entire burden - and high cost - of monitoring YouTube onto the victims of its infringement," Viacom said in a statement.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Google Begins TV Ad Tests
They will take over the world one day! surely they cant be competitive if they are just buying the ad space and reselling with profit attached!?! I cant help but think this is just another example of google spreading their net without actually applying themselves to it. In my opinion they should concentrate on what they do best, rather than trying to enter every market which springs to mind.
Google has begun a test of buying and reselling television commercials, according to reports from the Wall Street Journal, reports Search Engine Land. The tests are apparently taking place in Concord, California and mimic the system Google put into place when it began selling print ad space. It buys time from the television station and then resells the spot time to one of its advertisers. That spot then appears within ordinary commercial breaks and appears no different to the viewer from any other commercial.
Advertisers secure their ad space through an auction system, but one that's overseen by people and not an automated system, since it's still early in the test period.This test phase is the first time that Google's entry into the TV ad market has gone beyond statements of intent or in-house experimentation. Google has partnered with cable provider Astound Broadband for the test.
Google has begun a test of buying and reselling television commercials, according to reports from the Wall Street Journal, reports Search Engine Land. The tests are apparently taking place in Concord, California and mimic the system Google put into place when it began selling print ad space. It buys time from the television station and then resells the spot time to one of its advertisers. That spot then appears within ordinary commercial breaks and appears no different to the viewer from any other commercial.
Advertisers secure their ad space through an auction system, but one that's overseen by people and not an automated system, since it's still early in the test period.This test phase is the first time that Google's entry into the TV ad market has gone beyond statements of intent or in-house experimentation. Google has partnered with cable provider Astound Broadband for the test.
Mobile internet ads more popular than text campaigns
I am still not convinced on the impact mobile internet will have on the online world as the take up of its services are still very low. I am however willing to be persuaded it is the next big thing. according to recent articels 2007 is the year for take up and 2008 is the year for the boom, hold on to your seats!
Mobile internet usage is on the up, and a new survey finds that around a third of users would be prepared to view mobile web ads in exchange for free content.
The Online Publishers Association (OPA) surevy, entitled “Going Mobile: An International Study of Content Use and Advertising on the Mobile Web” involved 6,000 consumers in the U.S. and Western Europe. Of those that responded, 76 percent possessed devices with access to mobile internet yet only 32 percent actually used the service.
The OPA results found that consumers seem far happier to receive online ads than other mobile marketing techniques, such as text message campaigns. The allure of free content in exchange for viewing ad content attracted 34 percent of all respondents, with Europeans slightly keener at 37 percent.
“Consumers in every country are watching mobile ads and large numbers are being compelled to act,” said Pam Horan, president of the OPA. “This is a clear indication that the mobile Web is an effective advertising delivery platform and potentially valuable source of revenue.”
In comparison, a December, 2006, Forrester Inc. report found that nearly 80 percent of internet mobile users were annoyed just by the mere thought of internet advertising on their devices.
The Next Big Player in the Search Engine War!?!
Now this could be interesting! Wikipedia launching a search engine, but not only that, one which they want to be better than Google. I have been bugged for a long time at the search engines desire to be Google rather than be better than Google. Although Google are good at what they do, they are not perfect, somebody with the right backing and the right application could quite easily out do them in my opinion. On top of this wiki appear to be planning to incorporate some of their own philisophy of user approved and generated content into the project. Done correctly this could produce an innovative new payer in the search engine supremacy war, however it coud also just lead to another bit part player fighting for the scraps from Google's table.
Wikipedia founder says to challenge Google, Yahoo
Fri Mar 9, 2007 5:38AM EST
TOKYO (Reuters) - The online collaboration responsible for Wikipedia plans to build a search engine to rival those of Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc., the founder of the popular Internet encyclopaedia said on Thursday.
Wikia Inc., the commercial counterpart to the non-profit Wikipedia, is aiming to take as much as 5 percent of the lucrative Internet search market, Jimmy Wales said at a news conference in Tokyo.
"The idea that Google has some edge because they've got super-duper rocket scientists may be a little antiquated now," he said.
Describing the two Internet firms as "black boxes" that won't disclose how they rank search results, Wales said collaborative search technology could transform the power structure of the Internet.
Wales, a former futures trader who has become an evangelist for the free sharing of technology, said users could work together to improve search engines, just as Wikipedia users had tweaked and rewritten articles on the sprawling encyclopaedia.
The process of constant improvement would also make search technology less susceptible to spam, he said.
Founded in 2004 and now employing a staff of more than 30, Wikia hosts group publishing sites on a wide range of topics from psychology to the Muppets.
While Wikia gives away its tools free to users, the company requires that sites built with its resources link to Wikia.com, which makes money through advertising.
Using the same root software as Wikipedia, Wikia is likely eventually to carry more articles than its counterpart, Wales said.
Unlike the encyclopaedia, much of Wikia's content is geared toward niche markets -- a boon for readers obsessed with topics such as Star Wars films or trains.
Wikipedia currently has nearly 1.7 million articles in English alone, according to its Internet site.While Wales declined to give any earnings targets, he said the company had received a $4 million investment
Wikipedia founder says to challenge Google, Yahoo
Fri Mar 9, 2007 5:38AM EST
TOKYO (Reuters) - The online collaboration responsible for Wikipedia plans to build a search engine to rival those of Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc., the founder of the popular Internet encyclopaedia said on Thursday.
Wikia Inc., the commercial counterpart to the non-profit Wikipedia, is aiming to take as much as 5 percent of the lucrative Internet search market, Jimmy Wales said at a news conference in Tokyo.
"The idea that Google has some edge because they've got super-duper rocket scientists may be a little antiquated now," he said.
Describing the two Internet firms as "black boxes" that won't disclose how they rank search results, Wales said collaborative search technology could transform the power structure of the Internet.
Wales, a former futures trader who has become an evangelist for the free sharing of technology, said users could work together to improve search engines, just as Wikipedia users had tweaked and rewritten articles on the sprawling encyclopaedia.
The process of constant improvement would also make search technology less susceptible to spam, he said.
Founded in 2004 and now employing a staff of more than 30, Wikia hosts group publishing sites on a wide range of topics from psychology to the Muppets.
While Wikia gives away its tools free to users, the company requires that sites built with its resources link to Wikia.com, which makes money through advertising.
Using the same root software as Wikipedia, Wikia is likely eventually to carry more articles than its counterpart, Wales said.
Unlike the encyclopaedia, much of Wikia's content is geared toward niche markets -- a boon for readers obsessed with topics such as Star Wars films or trains.
Wikipedia currently has nearly 1.7 million articles in English alone, according to its Internet site.While Wales declined to give any earnings targets, he said the company had received a $4 million investment
Global Internet Penetration Up 10%
This article represents the opportunities available for companies operating online in developing countries. 33% increase year on year for india and if you consider its population of 1.1 billion you can see that if the usage continues in this way the implications for countires operating online are vast. as the broadband penetration increase so does the opportunity for marketing and advertising. watch this space for the indian internet revolution!
comScore’s latest rankings put the U.S. first with a 2 percent rise on 2006 taking the January, 2007, level to nearly 154 million internet users. Despite this, the U.S. still only accounts for 20 percent of the total 747 million users online globally.
Many of the rapidly developing countries, such as China, Russia and India, also saw the highest rises in online population. China is now the second largest online community with 86.8 million users, a growth of 20 percent from January 2006, but India leads the way with a hefty 33 percent increase.
comScore also measured user engagement ranking countries by the average number of hours spent online per visitor during January, 2007. Those users in countries with a high broadband penetration, such as Canada, Israel and the U.K, also spent a greater amount of time online than those with slower connections.
"We have all believed that 'always-on' broadband connections stimulate usage -- this study empirically confirms that conclusion," said Bob Ivins, comScore’s managing director in Europe.
comScore’s latest rankings put the U.S. first with a 2 percent rise on 2006 taking the January, 2007, level to nearly 154 million internet users. Despite this, the U.S. still only accounts for 20 percent of the total 747 million users online globally.
Many of the rapidly developing countries, such as China, Russia and India, also saw the highest rises in online population. China is now the second largest online community with 86.8 million users, a growth of 20 percent from January 2006, but India leads the way with a hefty 33 percent increase.
comScore also measured user engagement ranking countries by the average number of hours spent online per visitor during January, 2007. Those users in countries with a high broadband penetration, such as Canada, Israel and the U.K, also spent a greater amount of time online than those with slower connections.
"We have all believed that 'always-on' broadband connections stimulate usage -- this study empirically confirms that conclusion," said Bob Ivins, comScore’s managing director in Europe.
Microsoft broadsides Google over copyright usage
Raises the question which has been posed many a time before, who is responsible for the copyright of material on search engines? personally I think it would be very difficult for the search engines to police this (cant believe Im on their side!) but agree that they do have a certain responsibility to apply the appropriate filters to reduce it. It is an arguement which I cant see begin resolved any time soon and unless someone comes in and forces them to stop, google will continue to make money out of copyright material.
Microsoft has accused Google of adopting a 'cavalier' approach to copyright over the search engine giant's use of books, films, music and TV programmes without permission, and criticised it for making millions of dollars from other people's intellectual property.
In a speech to the Association of American Publishers, which will be held in New York later today, Tom Rubin, associate general counsel at Microsoft, is set to accuse Google of exploiting copyright and intellectual property through its search engine business.
ADVERTISEMENT
Rubin will state: "Companies that create no content of their own, and make money solely on the backs of other people's content, are raking in billions through advertising revenue and IPOs.
"Google takes the position that everything may be freely copied unless the copyright owner notifies Google and tells it to stop."
Rubin will also defend Microsoft's business practices by highlighting how it seeks copyright permission before using material created by a third party.
Google has come under fierce criticism in recent months from a host of media companies, including Viacom, which forced Google to remove over 100,000 of its video streams from YouTube.
Viacom join NBC Universal, which has accused Google of "only protecting copyright when it wants to", and 20th Century Fox, which issued a subpoena to the search engine in January demanding it remove episodes of hit drama '24', starring Keifer Sutherland, from YouTube.
In the speech Rubin is set to accuse Google of, "bestowing upon itself the unilateral right to make entire copies of copyrighted books," by publishing printed works online without permission.
Google has responded to the criticism by saying it only publishes extracts from books when it has the author's permission. The company also said it generated $3.3bn in ad revenue last year, which it said proved it was not generating revenue from third party content.
Microsoft has recently sent letters to chief executives of large media companies, asking for support to stop internet piracy. The company now joins Walt Disney, News Corporation, Viacom and Time Warner in attacking Google's use of third party content.
Microsoft has accused Google of adopting a 'cavalier' approach to copyright over the search engine giant's use of books, films, music and TV programmes without permission, and criticised it for making millions of dollars from other people's intellectual property.
In a speech to the Association of American Publishers, which will be held in New York later today, Tom Rubin, associate general counsel at Microsoft, is set to accuse Google of exploiting copyright and intellectual property through its search engine business.
ADVERTISEMENT
Rubin will state: "Companies that create no content of their own, and make money solely on the backs of other people's content, are raking in billions through advertising revenue and IPOs.
"Google takes the position that everything may be freely copied unless the copyright owner notifies Google and tells it to stop."
Rubin will also defend Microsoft's business practices by highlighting how it seeks copyright permission before using material created by a third party.
Google has come under fierce criticism in recent months from a host of media companies, including Viacom, which forced Google to remove over 100,000 of its video streams from YouTube.
Viacom join NBC Universal, which has accused Google of "only protecting copyright when it wants to", and 20th Century Fox, which issued a subpoena to the search engine in January demanding it remove episodes of hit drama '24', starring Keifer Sutherland, from YouTube.
In the speech Rubin is set to accuse Google of, "bestowing upon itself the unilateral right to make entire copies of copyrighted books," by publishing printed works online without permission.
Google has responded to the criticism by saying it only publishes extracts from books when it has the author's permission. The company also said it generated $3.3bn in ad revenue last year, which it said proved it was not generating revenue from third party content.
Microsoft has recently sent letters to chief executives of large media companies, asking for support to stop internet piracy. The company now joins Walt Disney, News Corporation, Viacom and Time Warner in attacking Google's use of third party content.
Google CEO, Cofounders Keep $1 Salary
Oh to be able to afford it!!
CEOs Run Cheap in Silicon Valley
In stark contrast to most corporate execs, Google CEO Eric Schmidt and cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin will each receive a $1 annual salary for 2007, writes CNNMoney.com, citing Google regulatory filings.
The three Google execs first requested the radical salary reduction during the second quarter of 2004, just prior to the company's going public in August of that year. All three own large chunks of Google stock: together, more than $33 billion worth.
Both Yahoo chairman Terry Semel and Apple's Steve Jobs are also getting $1 paychecks for the year.
CEOs Run Cheap in Silicon Valley
In stark contrast to most corporate execs, Google CEO Eric Schmidt and cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin will each receive a $1 annual salary for 2007, writes CNNMoney.com, citing Google regulatory filings.
The three Google execs first requested the radical salary reduction during the second quarter of 2004, just prior to the company's going public in August of that year. All three own large chunks of Google stock: together, more than $33 billion worth.
Both Yahoo chairman Terry Semel and Apple's Steve Jobs are also getting $1 paychecks for the year.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Search Results Personalisation
The personalisation of search results throws up a whole heap of questions which can be debated till the cows come home. But for me, the main two which need to be discussed are privacy and user experience (broad I know).
Google announced in February that it would be making a change to its google account sign in process to allow for more personalisation of search results. Basicaaly, as far as I can gather, the change will be to make the opt out of automatic sign in box as difficult to find as possible! Im sure there are certain legislation they need to comply with but this act throws up a whole heap of arguements (which I dont really want to go into). From my investigations into personalisation (though limited) I know that it can spook people. If you dont understand the automatic sign in process and google starts telling you what you have previously searched on and what you may be interested in it can be a little big brother-esq, producing a negative user experience.
Further affects on user experience can be produced if google interprets search data based on irrelevant criteria. This has been one of the pitfalls of local search. Basing results on a users location is great if they are searching for a locally based product. But what about if there product doesnt need to be locally based, financial services for example. You dont need you mortgage lender to be based nearby because you can perform all the necessary actions over the phone or online therefore making the search results less relevant than the normal ones. Similarly with a product such as hotels. a man in manchester searching on hotels is unlikely to actually want a hotel which is in manchester, more likely he wants a hotel in a city further afield for a weekend stay for example.
Im sure that the behemoth that is google has considered all these problems and will roll out something which addresses them all. But until this is the case I have my reservations about it taking off. I am all for it, believe me, but just think there are some rather lage hurdles to overcome for the product.
Google announced in February that it would be making a change to its google account sign in process to allow for more personalisation of search results. Basicaaly, as far as I can gather, the change will be to make the opt out of automatic sign in box as difficult to find as possible! Im sure there are certain legislation they need to comply with but this act throws up a whole heap of arguements (which I dont really want to go into). From my investigations into personalisation (though limited) I know that it can spook people. If you dont understand the automatic sign in process and google starts telling you what you have previously searched on and what you may be interested in it can be a little big brother-esq, producing a negative user experience.
Further affects on user experience can be produced if google interprets search data based on irrelevant criteria. This has been one of the pitfalls of local search. Basing results on a users location is great if they are searching for a locally based product. But what about if there product doesnt need to be locally based, financial services for example. You dont need you mortgage lender to be based nearby because you can perform all the necessary actions over the phone or online therefore making the search results less relevant than the normal ones. Similarly with a product such as hotels. a man in manchester searching on hotels is unlikely to actually want a hotel which is in manchester, more likely he wants a hotel in a city further afield for a weekend stay for example.
Im sure that the behemoth that is google has considered all these problems and will roll out something which addresses them all. But until this is the case I have my reservations about it taking off. I am all for it, believe me, but just think there are some rather lage hurdles to overcome for the product.
the transformation of search engine optimisation
Interesting thoughs on the future of search engine optimisation. The area which interests me most is that of personalisation as this, to me, is one of the key strengths of the internet. Amazon have done it for years, personalising the products offered to a return user, showing producst which may be of interest. The introduction fo this to the world of search engine marketing could change the way in which we all operate.
The Transformation Of Natural Search Optimization by Rob Garner, Wednesday, February 14, 2007
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT natural search is coming to a crossroads. My view is that the transformation may not be so radical that everything changes, in so much as having situations where only some things become more challenging. However, the basic tenets of natural search will remain the same, only applied to more sophisticated scenarios on a personalized level, a research level, and a technical level. Here are a few thoughts on some of these key drivers in the changing landscape of natural search optimization:
Personalization. Google recently announced that it was rolling out personalized results, marking the beginning of a change in the way we approach natural search optimization campaigns. Though there is the theoretical potential for every search result page to be different, the impact is not quite as drastic as it sounds.
My basic view of optimizing for personalized results is similar to some points outlined by David Berkowitz in yesterday's Search Insider column. His primary assertion is that the basic benchmark for optimization is still the editorial results (personalization turned off).
Make it there, and you'll make it anywhere. Achieving top rankings in the editorial results ensures that your site is trusted, and that you created a natural presence that is best-of-class in its keyword space.
More emphasis should be placed on aggregate traffic metrics such as increased share of natural search traffic, and ultimately, increased ROI and conversions. If personalization meets its primary goal of increased relevancy, then traffic and conversions should increase to properly tuned sites.
The rise of market research in search (going beyond "keyword research"). In recognizing that personalization is a now-major factor in the way that natural search traffic is delivered, the new imperative is optimizing a site to satisfy the target customer's desires. This is accomplished by thoroughly knowing your customer through market research, and further down the road, testing and validating through analytics and clickstream analysis. The deeper implication is that search-informed market research should be further integrated into the discovery and design phases of Web development.
The future will be in knowing what your target audience wants, knowing the language they speak and knowing how they find what they seek. Provide the content and experience they are seeking, and you will naturally match your offering to the key aspects of the personalization algorithm, such as click-through rate, time-on-site, number of page views (or in a rich app, back to "time-on-site"), internal site clickstreams, repeat visits, bookmarks, etc. Engage your target market, and the search engines will engage your site.
Today, many search firms substitute "keyword research" for true "market research." Predicting and understanding human search intent is much more complicated than choosing keyword terms based on search frequency, and the guestimated likelihood to click through. Human search intent is as complex as human beings themselves, and market research should be a primary driver in creating exceptional search engine marketing campaigns, for both natural and paid campaigns.
SEOs will be met with increasing technical demands to address the crawlability and indexability off rich Internet applications The trend of enterprise RIA adoption is hitting its stride in 2007. The shift is essentially focused on moving from a "page-based" paradigm to a "pageless" paradigm; one that treats the Web more as an application, rather than a book. Ajax is driving the change.
Senior Google engineer Matt Cutts told Search Insider back in December that RIA-based sites are not a threat to relevancy at this time, mainly because the developers that create them are technical enough to build a second site for search engines. This statement is interesting for a couple of reasons.
The first is that it is not a threat "at this time." This indicates that widespread adoption of RIA without a secondary technical solution for search engines could be a major threat to relevancy, as well as a threat to a company's search presence. If the content is hidden, the engines can't find it, and companies cannot be found.
The second implication is that to have your user-interface cake and eat it too, a progressive tech solution for search is on the menu. This will go beyond the capabilities of many search firms.
Ultimately, I don't believe that RIA will put any SEO firms out of business, because page-based sites are not going away any time soon (not for the next 10 years, anyway). As long as there are page-based sites and the need to rank those pages, there is room for those who practice current methods. But a new breed of SEO will emerge to address the need to optimize for RIA (there are many in existence now).
The bottom line is that natural search optimization is in a state of transformation at the enterprise level. If anything has changed, it's not that SEO is dead or dying -- it's that the bar has just been set even higher.
Rob Garner is a senior strategic planner for interactive marketing and search agency iCrossing. He is president-elect of the Dallas/Fort Worth Search Engine Marketing Association, and also serves on the board of the Dallas/Fort Worth Interactive Marketing Association.
The Transformation Of Natural Search Optimization by Rob Garner, Wednesday, February 14, 2007
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT natural search is coming to a crossroads. My view is that the transformation may not be so radical that everything changes, in so much as having situations where only some things become more challenging. However, the basic tenets of natural search will remain the same, only applied to more sophisticated scenarios on a personalized level, a research level, and a technical level. Here are a few thoughts on some of these key drivers in the changing landscape of natural search optimization:
Personalization. Google recently announced that it was rolling out personalized results, marking the beginning of a change in the way we approach natural search optimization campaigns. Though there is the theoretical potential for every search result page to be different, the impact is not quite as drastic as it sounds.
My basic view of optimizing for personalized results is similar to some points outlined by David Berkowitz in yesterday's Search Insider column. His primary assertion is that the basic benchmark for optimization is still the editorial results (personalization turned off).
Make it there, and you'll make it anywhere. Achieving top rankings in the editorial results ensures that your site is trusted, and that you created a natural presence that is best-of-class in its keyword space.
More emphasis should be placed on aggregate traffic metrics such as increased share of natural search traffic, and ultimately, increased ROI and conversions. If personalization meets its primary goal of increased relevancy, then traffic and conversions should increase to properly tuned sites.
The rise of market research in search (going beyond "keyword research"). In recognizing that personalization is a now-major factor in the way that natural search traffic is delivered, the new imperative is optimizing a site to satisfy the target customer's desires. This is accomplished by thoroughly knowing your customer through market research, and further down the road, testing and validating through analytics and clickstream analysis. The deeper implication is that search-informed market research should be further integrated into the discovery and design phases of Web development.
The future will be in knowing what your target audience wants, knowing the language they speak and knowing how they find what they seek. Provide the content and experience they are seeking, and you will naturally match your offering to the key aspects of the personalization algorithm, such as click-through rate, time-on-site, number of page views (or in a rich app, back to "time-on-site"), internal site clickstreams, repeat visits, bookmarks, etc. Engage your target market, and the search engines will engage your site.
Today, many search firms substitute "keyword research" for true "market research." Predicting and understanding human search intent is much more complicated than choosing keyword terms based on search frequency, and the guestimated likelihood to click through. Human search intent is as complex as human beings themselves, and market research should be a primary driver in creating exceptional search engine marketing campaigns, for both natural and paid campaigns.
SEOs will be met with increasing technical demands to address the crawlability and indexability off rich Internet applications The trend of enterprise RIA adoption is hitting its stride in 2007. The shift is essentially focused on moving from a "page-based" paradigm to a "pageless" paradigm; one that treats the Web more as an application, rather than a book. Ajax is driving the change.
Senior Google engineer Matt Cutts told Search Insider back in December that RIA-based sites are not a threat to relevancy at this time, mainly because the developers that create them are technical enough to build a second site for search engines. This statement is interesting for a couple of reasons.
The first is that it is not a threat "at this time." This indicates that widespread adoption of RIA without a secondary technical solution for search engines could be a major threat to relevancy, as well as a threat to a company's search presence. If the content is hidden, the engines can't find it, and companies cannot be found.
The second implication is that to have your user-interface cake and eat it too, a progressive tech solution for search is on the menu. This will go beyond the capabilities of many search firms.
Ultimately, I don't believe that RIA will put any SEO firms out of business, because page-based sites are not going away any time soon (not for the next 10 years, anyway). As long as there are page-based sites and the need to rank those pages, there is room for those who practice current methods. But a new breed of SEO will emerge to address the need to optimize for RIA (there are many in existence now).
The bottom line is that natural search optimization is in a state of transformation at the enterprise level. If anything has changed, it's not that SEO is dead or dying -- it's that the bar has just been set even higher.
Rob Garner is a senior strategic planner for interactive marketing and search agency iCrossing. He is president-elect of the Dallas/Fort Worth Search Engine Marketing Association, and also serves on the board of the Dallas/Fort Worth Interactive Marketing Association.
Are the Search Engines Killing SEO?
Mark Simon reported in Medis Posts Search Insider (12/02/2007) that the search engines would be the death of SEO. The logic behind this arguement being that as the search engines advance even futher in the way they read and index web pages the more the tactis used by SEO companies will become irrelevant. They will eventually be so advance in their algorithm that they will pull the websit ewhich is most useful to the user regardless of the sites tactics, and maybe even content.
Im not sur I agree with this arguement but I do agree to some degree that search engine optimisers will need to become experts in usability and functionality of a website rather than content. Navigation will become increasingly important (even more so than today) as will display and ease of use. Elements such as download speed become more prevelant and the basic rules of SEO as we know today change. This nothing ground breaking but is something to consider when making recommendations for websites. In the future the basic premise will be, make the site user friendly and you will make it search engine friendly.
Im not sur I agree with this arguement but I do agree to some degree that search engine optimisers will need to become experts in usability and functionality of a website rather than content. Navigation will become increasingly important (even more so than today) as will display and ease of use. Elements such as download speed become more prevelant and the basic rules of SEO as we know today change. This nothing ground breaking but is something to consider when making recommendations for websites. In the future the basic premise will be, make the site user friendly and you will make it search engine friendly.
SEO Vs. PPC
Although this is an interesting articale about the differences in the approach taken to PPC and SEO I feel that it is a little naive to treat the two as seperate entities. They have obvious similarities and by treating them as one channel (search) there is a lot that can be gained. Cross over of learnings is significant and by managing them closely together with a holistic approach brings the best out of each.
SEO Vs. PPC: The Heavyweight Battle Of Internet Marketing
SO, YOU'RE ASKING yourself the question online marketers are asking themselves today. Where should I spend most of my time, money, and efforts -- SEO or PPC? The battle has begun.
The conflict begins with too many choices. It's easy to feel lost when new forms of online advertising are constantly emerging. So, where do you start? You hear about social media networks, pay-per-call, blogs and innumerable others as they develop into bigger markets, but do any of these choices make sense? Here's the reality - no matter how many other avenues pop up, the engines still maintain the largest market share of all searches online. It is there that you'd be wisest to invest your money.
Round 1 – Time. When considering which form of Internet marketing to choose, your biggest determinants should be time and efficiency. Depending on how time-sensitive your objective is, it is important to know that the quickest way to drive traffic is through PPC (pay-per-click). You build your campaign, and with the click of a button, you're getting traffic. Changes are immediate, and you have control. SEO (search engine optimization) is quite the opposite, although certainly worth the effort. A couple of things to keep in mind -- it is very important to be patient. Due to the dynamic nature of the engines, time projections are difficult to make. You make a change, and it often takes months to see results. Also, you need to keep in mind that optimizing your Web site is an ongoing effort. As the nature of search engine algorithms, your site might need “adjustments.” But the end result -- the possibility of increasing your site's natural rankings and getting a high volume of free traffic -- is well worth the time spent
Round 2 – Money. You often hear people saying that “SEO is so expensive!” But is it really? Let's compare it to PPC. Granted, SEO often requires a considerable upfront investment, but consider the payoff. An optimization professional recommends (and often makes) changes that are intended to increase a site's natural rankings -- which translates into free traffic. Although you can control your site's rankings via PPC, you will always have to pay for them, which most often ends up being many times more expensive than the SEO investment. Anyone can start a PPC campaign, but the challenge is getting your site ranked in the first pages of the engines. Having the first spot or even the 5th or 6th in Google for your keywords is like having a huge billboard in the middle of Times Square. The traffic is intense and the exposure is priceless! We can say the same about a great ranking on a PPC campaign, but remember one thing -- you will always have to pay for it. Free clicks in sponsored search? Never.
Round 3 – Effort We know SEO takes more time and effort than creating and maintaining a PPC campaign. Yet, it's important to recognize that a considerable effort is required with both. Optimizing a Web site is like trying to climb to the top of a mountain. Once you start, you can't stop until you reach the top. You work for hours at a time on optimization, with your goal in sight, and then rest while the engine crawlers find and assess your improvements. You see the results of those changes via movement of your site's natural rankings, and then start up the mountain, again. The creation of a PPC campaign takes only a few steps -- but to make it successful, consistent maintenance is required. Rather than investing hours of work at once with down time in between, PPC requires almost daily attention and maintenance. It may look simple from the outside, but there are so many small things can make a huge difference in the success of a campaign. This is the rivalry of the Internet marketing world and getting more and more intense. Who's watching? We all are.
Each tactic, whether it is SEO or PPC, has its positives and negatives. Consider the following:
1 - Business Growth. SEO and PPC have opened the doors to small business and fueled fast- growing enterprises. A company can make a name for itself in no time if it pays enough per keyword to be in Google's top ranked positions or has a better optimized Web site than its competitors. For e-commerce clients, this has been an incredible way to market and sell their products. Think about how much renting a locale can cost a business per month and how much traffic will actually go into your store. Now, think about the traffic that exists online, in which you can target either by city, state, region, or country, and how much more affordable it can be!
2 - Brand Awareness. When launching an Internet marketing campaign, you're not only marketing your product or service but acting on a form of public relations. Many PR firms are reaching out to Internet marketing firms to help their client's efforts. When deciding whether or not PPC is viable, consider both the cost per click, and the number of people who will see your ad (whether or not they clicked). It's free exposure, and what's better?
3 – Traffic. Traffic will make or break your online business. If you're not generating traffic, you're not generating sales. The engines can deliver the highest volume of traffic if positioned in the top rankings. You already know this! Now, the important factor is driving qualified traffic to your Web site. This all comes down to the SEO and PPC determinants, such as choosing the right keywords, ads and other elements that are driving the traffic you want to ensure your online efforts are successful. One major factor of failing campaigns is insufficient research. Research is crucial to creating a winning campaign to compete in a growing market.
It's time to start considering which type of marketing will best suit the needs of your business. If you're still debating whether it's the right time to get serious about marketing online, consider that your competition is most likely making their presence felt there already.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Hello
hello and welcome to world of search. Here I will be posting and commenting on articles from across the globe which relate to search engine marketing. All views contained in this blog are my own and are not necessarily shared by my employer. If you disagree or have a major greivance with anything I have siad then feel free to contact me on the link provided.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
