My latest column on demographic search engines is up at MediaPost (”Thoughts on Demographic Search Engines”, registration required.  I am intrigued about several aspects of this new approach coming from IAC, with the first one called RushmoreDrive.com. 

http://www.mediapost.com/blogs/search_insider/?p=862

Back in Big D after almost a week at the Search Engine Strategies conference in San Jose.  I was there to co-present an eight hour session on the SEMPO Insititute’s Insider’s Guide, along with SEMPO Institute dean Terry Plank, and MSN’s Jorie Waterman.   

One other highlight was attending the Google Dance at Google headquarters in Mountain View.  The theme was “Glow in the Dark”, and the place was very lit up by night fall.  There must have been at least three thousand people there.  I took some interesting pics on my phone, and I will get those posted soon.

I also had the opportunity to judge the first SES awards.  Overall, a great show.

My latest column is posted at MediaPost Search Insider.  This week I covered some of the key findings from a survey released by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, which was focused on search behavior “on a typical day”.  Here is the first part of the article highlighting some of the key findings - a link to the full column is a the bottom:

The sample group consisted of 2,251 adults, ages 18 and older, surveyed between April 8 and May 11, 2008.  The big question in the survey was, “did you happen to [use an online search engine] yesterday, or not?”, and yielded 1,553 who said ‘yes’.  Here is what they found:

-          Overall, the amount of daily search users grew 69% between 2002 and 2008.

-          While coming in a close second to email in this study, search beat out other daily Internet activities such as reading the news (39%), checking the weather (30%), researching a hobby (29%), surfing for fun (28%), and visiting a social networking site (13%).

-          Daily searchers are more likely to be “socially upscale”, and college educated with an income of $50,000 or more per year.

-          Internet users with broadband connections were much more likely to search than those with dial-up at home (58% vs. 26%).

-          Users between the ages of 18-29 and 30-49 were higher-than-average daily searchers (55% and 54% respectively).  Of searchers 65 and older, only 27% were daily search users.

-          Men are generally more aware of the differences between paid and natural search.  The study found that men say they have searched more frequently, and are more confident in their search abilities. 

Read the full column here:
http://www.mediapost.com/blogs/search_insider/?p=852

Here is the first half of my current column at MediaPost’s Search Insider.  This is great story, and it is very exciting to see another piece of Internet history happening before us.

Originally published in Search Insider:

In my last column, I discussed some of the challenges of moving an existing website to a new vanity generic top-level domain (gTLD).  In this installment, I will provide a review of several existing gTLDs, and discuss the branding and search impact, and also the process of applying for a gTLD.

For a quick recap, ICANN, the governing and administrating body over all Internet addresses, voted in late June of this year to allow individuals and corporations to apply for .anything, or literally any word or phrase exceeding three characters not taken. A new top level domain can be used as a registry, or for one’s own Web presence.  Under the new policy, the following names are true possibilities as a home for an online Web presence:

http://www.2020.abc
http://dallas.cowboys
http://bach.music
http://www.checkmy.email
http://yourband.mp3
http://username.myspace
http://caramelmacchiato.starbucks
http://batman.movie
http://thisisspinaltap.imdb
http://olympics.wikipedia

Let your imagination run wild. But first, let’s take a look at other existing generic TLDs.

The branding of a TLD – why .com will always be king

If the marketing novelty of the vanity gTLD seems to outweigh all other considerations, it may be a good exercise to first analyze the current landscape.  Ever heard of .Museum?  Yes, it’s a real working gTLD (see this redirected URL for http://nyc.moma.museum; their main URL is http://www.moma.org), though the average Internet user is wholly unaware of its existence.  .Travel has been in existence for almost two years, but very few travel sites have adopted it as their primary address on the Web.  More commonly, major travel and hospitality brands have reserved these names and pointed them at “Brand.com” as a matter of driving traffic, and for brand and trademark defense. Other extensions such as .Jobs and .Pro have yet to gain mainstream appeal, even though their categories have wide potential within their respective theme-space.  Another highly anticipated extension, .Mobi, has also failed to gain mainstream adoption as the default address of the mobile Web, with most major brands choosing to host their mobile presence on their legacy brand.com or subdomain (ex. m.cnn.com), targeted to mobile devices. 

Your own awareness of these gTLDs (or lack thereof) is a direct reflection of how well that TLD was branded. Enterprise marketers will face the same challenge if/when they change over their existing .com presence to a new extension.  Hosting your Web presence on .com benefits from a TLD brand that everyone has helped build. The .Com  domain had no brand until U.S. advertisers got behind it, and a valid question to ask is whether or not your new gTLD is ready to compete against this level of awareness and trust.  The answer is really simple – no single advertiser has the budget to match up to the amount of collective ad dollars that have promoted .com – it is synonymous with the Internet, more so than any other domain brand.  This may be obvious to most readers, but marketers should keep this fact in mind as discussions around changing to gTLDs progress in their respective organizations. 
 

The birth of the search-optimized Top Level Domain

Shifting gears a little bit, let’s pick back up on the natural search aspect of gTLDs.  Having a generic keyword theme in a vanity gTLD also doesn’t guarantee natural search success or authority.  Just like a new domain, the Top Level Domain still earns its authoritativeness in the search engines.  It has long been recognized by SEOs that engines have shown bias and trust towards content and links on …..

Read the rest of the column here:

http://www.mediapost.com/blogs/search_insider/?p=842

This one seemed to come out of the blue this morning.  New search engine debuts, from a team that includes former Altavista lead engineer Louis Monier.  I ran a few queries, and the most interesting thing I noticed was that it picked up relevant listings that I had not found before.  But I have a few questions and personal thoughts about my experience:

- “Cuil” (pronounced “cool”) could not be any more confusing, and they would have to get “cool.com” to make it right.  The problem is that the owner of that name is well known for holding on to his names, as he can afford to.  Driving traffic to “cuil.com” will only drive traffic to “cool.com”, especially if word-of-mouth picks up. Google and Yahoo don’t have this problem.

- I saw a lot of relevant images, but they were misaligned with the results.  It seems to infer that the image came from the site it indexed, but it wasn’t.  It’s confusing, and irrelevant.

- The layout can be disorienting, and does not allow for easy scanning of the entire list.  It would be nice if users had more control of the results display, including a standard ordered list, reduction of the desc/snippet, and prominence on the URL (a lot of trust is placed in the URL).

- The index could stand to be freshened up a bit.  I found pages that had been removed months ago.

- The top 10 could use more diversity at the domain level.  I found a lot of pages from a single domain that had little to offer.

All said, I’m keeping an eye on this one.    Lots more to review - but this was my first impression. Danny Sulivan has a detailed review here: http://searchengineland.com/080728-000100.php
 

My latest column is posted at MediaPost Search Insider, the first of a two-part series on the impact of new vanity ICANN generic top level domains (gTLDs).  The title accidentally got hacked off - it should say “.anythinggoes”, so it looks a little out of context in its current state.

http://www.mediapost.com/blogs/search_insider/?p=831

Also, here some additional columns I wrote for MediaPost that discuss the importance of a domain move, and the importance of planning for search:

Five Tips For Assessing the Value of Natural Search
http://blogs.mediapost.com/search_insider/?p=624

The Unfolding Search Story of Bodog.com
http://blogs.mediapost.com/search_insider/?p=614

Seven Challenges of SEM Planning and Execution
http://blogs.mediapost.com/search_insider/?p=408

Solutions to Seven Challenges of SEM Planning and Execution
http://www.mediapost.com/blogs/search_insider/?p=417

Needless to say, everyone in the local search engine marketing industry is a bit surprised at Google’s decision to close their Dallas office.  The DFW SEM association posted a formal response on Business Wire, which is starting to get picked up on various search blogs. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS206136+10-Jul-2008+BW20080710

This $100,000,000 estimate does not take into account all of the SMB’s in the area, which we expect would push the actual spend up considerably higher.  It also doesn’t take into account the spends in Austin, Houston, and San Antonio.  In addition to the twenty people from the Dallas office, Google be thinking about adding 100 more to serve this market, and also consider a more localized approach. 

As local SEM’s, we were very pleased to have the Google office in the area.  Yes, they serviced accounts nationally, but Dallas people were also present and highly visible at local interactive marketing associations such as DFWSEM, the DFW IMA, and The Dallas Ad League.

I certainly wish them all the best.

More coverage from Search Engine Watch
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/080711-115754

I was recently interviewed by the Dallas Morning News for a front page story in the May 18, 2008 Sunday Jobs section.  The writer covered the DFW SEM Association, SEMPO organization, and also how DFW is becoming one of the top national areas for SEM talent.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/classifieds/news/jobcenter/news/stories/DN-searchengine_18emp.ART.State.Edition1.4678652.html

The next DFWSEM Association meeting is on July 16, from 6:30- 8:30PM at the Renaissance Hotel in Richradson Texas.

The topic is on things that will hurt your natural search presence, followed by a site clinic.

http://www.dfwsem.org

Here is my latest column for MediaPost Search Insider. 

http://blogs.mediapost.com/search_insider/?p=821

I’m still finding that there is a lot of confusion in the search industry about the basic framework for search engine marketing strategy, so I decided to step back this week and offer a basic framework for search strategy.  I should note that my POV is mostly from an enterprise or corporate search engine marketing standpoint.  But the main point is to step back and really consider all aspects of SEM - not just SEO and paid media.

ICANN’s approval today of the opening of .anything is going to be a wild show at the very least. 

Here is an overview:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9978448-7.html

This column originally appeared in Search Insider on August 2, 2006.by Rob Garner 

In my Aug. 2, column, “Natural-Born Search Killers,” I discussed how not having a URL strategy could kill a search presence, detailing four key elements that contribute to the value of site domains and URLs.  (The elements included link equity, positive search engine equity, bookmark equity and search investment.)  In this article, I will discuss a few additional elements of URL equity: 

1)       The consequences of redesigning without a URL strategy

2)       Questions every marketer and developer should ask before a redesign

3)       How to assess the value of existing URLs

4)       How to transition existing URL equity

The consequences of redesigning without a URL strategy

Redesigning a Web site without paying attention to the inherent value of URLs can have a tremendously negative impact on search visibility.  Here are a few common issues that you should watch for during your site relaunch:

Indexed pages drop out of the search engines.

New site pages are not found by crawlers.

Backlink history is lost.

Navigation becomes difficult, and visitors cannot find what they are looking for.

Bookmarks are rendered useless, leading to “not found” error pages.

Server bandwidth is wasted.

Valuable site traffic is lost.

Lost conversions and sales

Calling out these issues should emphasize the importance of paying attention to URL strategy and structure. Here are three key questions every marketer or Web designer should ask before planning and redesigning a Web site:

1. Is search-engine based URL architecture included in the site’s business and technical requirements?

Getting URL structure and search optimization established as business and technical requirements before starting a redesign goes 90 percent of the way to maintaining positive search equity.  Trying to tackle complex search issues in the middle or end of redesign is a losing battle that nobody wins.

2. How much URL equity is established in the current site structure?

URL equity should be based on several factors, including the number of backlinks, the quality of those backlinks, the previous investment in search, the age of the domain and URL structure, and positive search engine equity.

3. How can the existing URL structure be preserved?

If you have a sustainable URL structure, in order to preserve positive equity it is a search best practice to maintain that structure when going from one site design to another.   While you can’t always avoid changes in URL structure (possibly because of user experience changes or technical issues), making every attempt to maintain consistent structure will provide better long-term benefits for search.

Assessing URL Equity

Once Web site stakeholders understand the value in preserving URL structures in a redesign, there are many considerations for assessing the quality of existing link structures.  To assess the value of a URL prior to the redesign, consider the following:

Quality of inbound home page and deep site links–Time should be spent reviewing hundreds, or even thousands, of links through a manual backlink check in a major search engine;  key links should be identified and prioritized in order of importance.

Age and history of domain and URLs–The age of a domain and internal URL structure can also have a major positive impact on a site’s search visibility. 

Log file history–Based on incoming search engine referrals and link traffic, reading log files can provide a good indication of which internal site pages are performing well. 

Liabilities–URLs can also have a negative history that could reduce the search performance of a Web site.  If a site has ever engaged in tactics that search engines don’t approve, or if the URLs have been banned at any time, you should consider a change of domain.

Transitioning URL equity

No matter how much you prepare for a smooth transition, some URLs will inevitably change, and some documents will be removed.  In this event, proper redirection techniques are essential in preserving positive search engine visibility.  In most cases, 301 permanent redirects are the best solution for using multiple domains and for the pages that have moved to a new location.

301 redirects vs. 302 redirects: When a page is permanently moved to a new location, a 301 status will tell the search engine to remove the previous page from the index, and will start crawling the new location from that point forward. 

Pointing multiple domains: Pointing multiple domains is acceptable to search engines, as long as 301 redirects are used.  When 302 or 200 status redirects are used, you may encounter  duplicate content issues.  In a worst-case scenario, duplicate content issues can result in the total ban of pages or an entire site, and will often decrease the overall search engine performance of a Web site (though most duplicate content is removed without any site penalty). 

URL rewriting:  If URLs must change, one solution is to rewrite the new URLs in the same format as the old structure, or create a new search-friendly structure entirely.  URL rewriting will give you more freedom to change platforms and file names, while maintaining a consistent naming convention.

This column originally appeared in Search Insider on August 2, 2006.by Rob Garner 

In April 2006, Emarketer/Marketing Sherpa reported that marketers will substantially increase Web site redesign spending more than any other interactive activity, including search marketing. As redesigning becomes a more popular option than starting from scratch, it is imperative for marketers to understand the major elements that impact a pre-existing natural search presence.

Any number of different project factors can wipe out the search presence of a Web site that is performing well. A few of the more commonly known natural born search killers include Flash, hidden content and non-search-friendly content management systems. Much has been written on each of these topics, so I want to take this time to shed some light on a lesser-known element that has just as much potential to make or break natural search presence: changing a URL structure.

One element of redesign that has a major impact on search investments is the treatment of URL equity, which is the sum of several important values tied into URL structure. Changing domains or renaming existing deep URL structures without a solid strategy can wipe out years of gains in links, traffic, sales and conversions, and prior natural search investments.

Over the last few years I have observed that client indifference to URL strategy has consistently been a major threat to a search presence. Being indifferent about URLs means that a single variable implemented in the development or planning process has the potential to erase years of positive gains. Rather than taking recommended preventive and transitional measures, most clients go into reactive mode and attempt to patch up issues than cannot be fully repaired. The impact is felt in years of lost links, lost search engine traffic, dramatic loss of indexed pages, lost sales and conversions, and lost search investments.

I am not suggesting that sites should never be redesigned, or that URLs should not be renamed. There are many legitimate reasons to alter URLs, including revamping of the user path and experience, changing technical platforms, or removing content. A redesign should be treated as an opportunity to bridge current equity and to maintain a sustainable URL structure that will position a site for a long-term positive natural search presence. Understanding the inherent value of URLs will not only help bridge accrued natural search gains, but also bridge a site’s search engine reputation for years to come.

The elements of URL equity

Uniform Resource Locators (also known as Uniform Resource Identifiers or URIs) are the axis point for all traffic that runs throughout a site. A site’s URL equity is composed of the following elements:

Link equity: This is the positive buildup of links over time, both to the home page and the internal URL structure of a site. Links may come from many places such as blogs, newspaper sites, authority sites, directories or internal site pages. It is not uncommon for many major brands to have hundreds of thousands, or even millions of quality links pointing to a domain and deep internal site structures. Links and other “off-the-page” factors are now the most crucial element in how search engines retrieve their results. Preservation of existing links alone is a strong enough reason to maintain URL equity and natural search engine presence.

Where there is link equity, there can also be link liability. If a domain or URL has been banned in an engine due to bad linking practices, then another URL name may be considered.

Positive search engine equity: Positive search engine equity is gained from the history of search engine crawling, indexing and retrieving over time. URLs are like a serial number for a document, and search engines use domains and internal URLs as the reference point for these processes. For sites that do not spam and have a positive history with the search engines, URLs become more trusted over time.

Using new URLs or domains in a redesign means that engines must start the crawling, indexing, and retrieval processes over again. Search optimizers share the common knowledge that legacy domains and trusted URLs are like gold; if a domain or trusted URL structure is several years old or older, there is a distinct advantage over sites built on newer domains and structures. As I mentioned above, a current or previous ban in the engines indicates a liability. In that case, renaming may still be a positive step for a redesign.

Bookmark equity: One additional (and often overlooked) factor in assessing URL equity is bookmark traffic. A bookmark represents a site conversion for visitors who have found useful content and will return later. Failure to bridge the gap for converted visitors is a poor usability experience, because these visitors are left hanging with their intentions unfulfilled.

Search investment: Costs are incurred whether natural search is performed in-house, by an agency or by a consultant. When URLs change without a plan, there is a risk of completely wiping out search investments. This could include previous link development campaigns, general site promotion designed to drive traffic to deep site URLs, or implementation of general search engine-based Web design practices.

In the next installment of this column, I will discuss the deeper impact of changing URLs in a site redesign, bridging URL structures and placing value on site URLs.

This column originally appeared in the online version of Media Post’s Search Insider, July, 19, 2006.

In my natural and paid search campaign management experience over the past several years, I have often heard a common misperception about holistic search, mostly from clients who were new to the medium. It goes like this: “If we’re ranking in natural (or paid), then we don’t need the other one.”

Digging deeper into one client’s reasoning behind this assertion, I found that the company would not consider engaging in paid search because of the perceived erosive effect on natural clicks, which in effect caused them to pay for clicks that were otherwise “free.” Breaking down the logic of the latter perception reveals some intriguing reasons not only to engage in holistic search management, but also measure holistically against conversions, rather than simply pit search against itself.

Click Erosion, or Click Elevation from Holistic Search?

Case studies published by Nielsen and SEO-PR report that when a listing is highly placed in both the natural and paid areas of a search engine results page, there is a click lift ranging between 32 percent and 300 percent. In the SEO-PR study, conversions increased by 300 percent as well. I also see similar spikes in my own campaigns, with clicks and conversions vaulting as high as 100 percent.

Once click and conversion lift is achieved through holistic search, there is one additional factor that sheds a greater light on the value of holistic management.

Adding “Free” Search into Holistic Conversion Metrics

One weakness of the erosion argument is the notion that clicks in natural search are “free.” Natural search is not truly free, because costs are incurred either by hiring a professional agency or consultant, or by doing it in-house. Even reporting and analytics for “free” results have a time, dollar, and resource cost attached.
By acknowledging natural resource costs and adding them to overall metrics, CPC gaps between paid and natural become more realistic. While these costs inevitably increase average CPCs, most search marketers find that natural optimization has a consistently decreasing CPC over time, which effectively lowers the average holistic CPC as well.

When conversion value is measured against lift using an average CPC metric, a new picture of the search campaign emerges, particularly in measuring a positive or negative impact. This does not discount the dynamic interplay between paid and natural search, but does provide a more objective view of the overall search campaign.

Here are a few other interesting factors of holistic search management that support the theory and measurement of increased clicks:

There are two basic opportunities to capture visibility on a search engine results page. As obvious as this may sound, it is worth repeating. Marketers have at least one opportunity to appear in natural results, and one opportunity to appear in paid search. One of the basic premises behind holistic lift is that when page visibility is increased, clicks and conversions also increase.

If holistic search creates additional clicks, then not operating holistically drives those additional clicks somewhere else. Whether you engage in holistic search management or not, the search frequency will remain constant. Not engaging holistically means abandoning additional clicks and conversions that could have been derived from the lift. These searchers may be driven to other sites (including competitors), or a search may be aborted when intent is not met with satisfactory results.

Some searchers are predetermined to click on paid or natural based on the greatest likelihood that one or the other will deliver on search intent. As Gord Hotchkiss reported in a recent “Search Insider” column, certain visitors are pre-mapped to go to “the area of greatest promise” on the SERP, based on their search intention. Hotchkiss posits that our potential visitors have two general views of the search engine results page, that of the paid promise, and of the natural promise. For the marketer, this means being visible in both throughout all search stages until satisfaction is met.

The real story about a holistic search campaign is told in the lift and return on ad spend, not just the erosion measurement or the paid media budget. If you are not engaging holistically, then maybe now is the time to test it and see how your conversions are affected.