Digital Marketing and Technological Insight

I just read an article on AdAge.com that talks about how Microsoft is going after Google with a new ad campaign and a new search engine called Bing. It seems like every few months there is the next “Google Killer” that promises to revolution search. Remember Cuil? Now the buzz is on Wolfram Alpha. The issue isn’t whether or not Google is the best search engine in regards to relevant results - it comes down to the fact that Google is good enough.

The software giant (Microsoft) is set to launch an $80 million to $100 million campaign for Bing, the search engine it hopes will help it grab a bigger slice of the online ad market. That’s a big campaign — big compared with consumer-product launches ($50 million is considered a sizable budget for a national rollout) and very big when you consider that Google spent about $25 million on all its advertising last year, according to TNS Media Intelligence, with about $11.6 million of that focused on recruiting. Microsoft, by comparison, spent $361 million. Certainly Google has never faced an ad assault of anything like this magnitude.

I love the name Bing for an online brand but hate it for the name of a search engine, how soon before we start seeing ads with “Bing! Your search is done” everywhere? Putting the name aside will Microsoft’s Bing be a better search engine? Possibly. Will the average user actually stop using Google because Bing is better? Probably not. Google is firmly entrenched as being synonymous with searching online and that won’t go away anytime soon. Google has the brand association that can not be bought …as long as people continue to  “Google it”, no other search engine stands a chance.

So what should Microsoft do? They should focus their ad campaign on being #2. Admit defeat, crown Google the king and go after Yahoo’s search share. A “We’re #2″ ad campaign will not only be effective but probably save the company millions. But Microsoft has billions in cash so they will have no problem spending whatever they want  - can’t wait to see all those articles talking about how they spent $100 million and upped their market share only 2%.

BING!

Recently Google launched a new “options” feature  on their search results page.  After clicking the “Show Options” link a new left navigation opens that allows  the searcher to “slice and dice”  search results into more relevant chunks. Searchers can now focus their results by videos, forums, reviews, time or even a more visual representation.

So what does this mean for search behavior? Not much. How many general web searchers do you think will actually take the time or care to refine their search results? I would guess a tiny fraction of the millions of people who come to Google.com to do a search. Google’s success is based on its simplicity - other search engines have been giving visitors options for years and none of them caught on. People want instant gratification and are used to trusting the results Google puts forth. Why do you think the vast majority of people barely scroll below the fold or click to another search page? Hint: it isn’t because they found the most relevant search result.

From an SEO perspective this doesn’t change anything either. A good SEO strategy should already include Videos, Forums and Product Reviews, so if anything this just reinforces the importance of how SEO goes beyond just on-page optimization and linking.

Starting this weekend Google will be running a Chrome commercial using Google TV Ads on various networks. Below is the commercial that will be running…will this actually get people to install and use Chrome over FireFox & Internet Explorer?

I have been talking about Twitter and other micro-blogging services for a couple years now - the discussion of Twitter monetization has gone for almost as long.  The buzz  Twitter gets is always at a fevered pitch but recently it has been even higher with the “talks” of a Google acquisition. With all the hype and hoopla going around a few interesting discussions have been taking place about what a Twitter brought to you by Google would look like. Outside of integrating GMail, Google Docs, Picasa and other Google services the real interesting potential would be adding AdWords Contextual targeting.

Personally I would hope that either Twitter itself or whomever bought it would not ruin the user-experience by placing ads on either the profile pages or tweet streams. However, what about Twitter search? Think about it for a second - advertisers could target real-time conversations through the existing AdWords (or similar) platform. Check out my mock-up below: people are tweeting about SXSW in Texas…ads for Texas travel deals show up on the side. Sounds like a home run to me…plus Twitter doesn’t need to be bought by Google to do this - a nice rev-share agreement would do just fine.

A couple of days ago Google launched their much anticipated social media / wiki search initiative: SearchWiki. SearchWiki allows logged-in Google users to customize their search results by promoting, commenting, deleting or even adding specific SERP results. These new features are nothing ground breaking, social media services like Digg have been allowing interaction with SERP’s for years and Wikia Search has been doing the same thing for awhile now. However, when it comes to Google anything they do becomes a game changer based on the pure volume of people who use the service and the amount of companies that rely on the organic traffic it generates.

Here is a screen shot of SearchWiki at work with one of my affiliate websites. As you can see next to the title there is an up and down arrow. By “promoting” my site for the search term “college football jerseys” my site went from the 11th spot to #1 in my search results. At the bottom of the listing there is the comment option which allows you to make whatever comment about that specific search result you want - this comment is public, meaning anyone can see what I wrote about the search result.

Here is a screen shot of how to add a site to your SERP. The below option shows up in the footer and allows you to add a specific URL that will show up the next time you search for that specific keyword. If the URL you add is in the Google search index you will see it show up like a normal listing, however if the URL is not indexed you will see just the URL. This raises the question whether or not adding a URL that isn’t indexed would expedite the URL being crawled and added to the index quicker then with other methods.

Obviously everyone within the search business, especially those involved in SEO, are keeping a close eye on SearchWiki. Google is making it very clear that the changes users make to their SERP are seen only by them and does not affect the overall public ranking of a website. However, Google can do whatever they want and it is conceivable that they add how many people promote / remove a website to the overall ranking algorithm - they could even take into account the publicly available comments based on things like keywords. For SEO’s anything and everything has to be planned for.

The real and immediate impact SearchWiki will have is for reputation management, product reviews and customer feedback. SearchWiki will allow customers, fans, clients and anyone else who is logged-in to leave their opinion - good or bad - about a product, company, offering or person. Screw over some people? You better be prepared for anyone who searches for you seeing those negative comments. If anything this shows the increased importance of companies having a comprehensive online communication and customer interaction strategy in place.

Google seems to be working out some of the bugs with program as SearchWiki sometimes goes away for me. I expect to see fluctuations in the service for some time as this is a massive undertaking on the both the technical and strategic side.

For additional information check out the offical Google SearchWiki video: