A new study reported on Slashdot suggests that the amount of value in business associated with the “long-tail”—that is, dealing primarily in smaller quantities for niche markets—is less a wonderful thing for businesses than recently assumed. In short, greed and fear play a big role here just like it does in everything economic. People love the idea of being involved in a windfall and are afraid of picking the wrong niche and not getting enough demand, so they all try to follow the next big craze or compete on harder turfs.

What this means for SEO is that companies aren’t going to want extremely specific keywords with low competition; they want to go head-to-head with established brands. This means that rather than spending time being creative in keyword generation, search engine optimizers have to spend a lot more time paying close attention to the little tweaks which were at one point the icing on the cake to just picking the right landing page. In essence, they really have to shift their efforts to be much more detail-oriented, and extremely disciplined in our algorithm-related SEO knowledge. This will be a definite area for competition among SEO firms, especially if the trend does start going towards popular terms rather than long-tail ones.

Moderator:
Mike Grehan, Global KDM Officer, Acronym Media
Speakers:
Mitch Joel, President, Twist Image
Dustin Rideout, Account Director, Digital Strategist, Wunderman
Andy Renieris, Head of Search, Yahoo! Canada Search

Ostensibly, this session was part of the Advanced Track at SES Toronto, but it unfortunately focused primarily on what blended search is, and why you should be doing it. Given that blended search has been around for a year, and a major part of SEO for at least six months, I was hoping for a bit more in depth information. Still, there were occasional nuggets of interest.

Mitch Joel reports that during an event at the Googleplex, Google stated that 20% of all searches done every day are brand new to Google. That’s quite a bit higher than I thought it would be.

Andy Renieris announced the public release of Yahoo SearchMonkey. This is a development environment that allows a site to control the look of it’s listings in Yahoo’s natural search, blending in other media types. It does not impact a site’s placement within the rankings, just it’s look.

I wondered why there was a guy walking around the show in a monkey suit. Now I know.

In any case, users have to turn SearchMonkey on to see the results. Essentially, it is a widget. While this is not earth shattering at this time, if Yahoo integrates these changes more widely into the SERPs, it could have major impact in the future.

The final interesting comment came from Mike Grehan, who stated that blended search causes the “golden triangle” of eye tracking heat maps to go away. The eye is drawn all over the page to the new media types.

I would have hoped for more advanced information, but there were a few good pieces in this session.

“Google’s not a real company. It’s a house of cards.”
- Court transcript, November 2004

“There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance.”
- USA Today, April 2007

“We will make our products work out of the box.”
- Source and date unknown, but does it really matter?

“There will be no media consumption left in 10 years that is not delivered over an IP network. There will be no newspapers, no magazines that are delivered in paper form. Everything gets delivered in an electronic form.”
- Washington Post, June 2008

Ballmer may be a brilliant executive, but he leaves a lot to be desired as a prognosticator. But then, so do most who attempt to predict the future (ask me sometime about my string of incorrect predictions regarding the Democratic Primary).

That said, Ballmer’s predictions regarding the death of print are especially inane. Print was predicted to die after the creation of both radio and television. It’s still here.

Certainly, circulation has dropped for many print vehicles. And the movement of classified ads to services like Craigslist and Monster have removed some juicy revenue streams from the newspapers. But print is not going away. At least not within the next decade.

Newspapers, in particular, still have very attractive business models. Many have profit margins that online publications would love to have. And they have significant numbers of feet on the street, something the online-only publications are not likely to be able to field any time soon. Yes, they need to adjust, but those that take a long term approach are likely to do so.

And while computer screens have improved greatly, they still cause considerable eye strain with continual use. Especially the screens on smaller, mobile devices. As much as I love technology, I’d still rather sit out on the back porch with a print magazine, not a computer.

Lastly, with the number of boomers retiring in the next decade, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the demand for print media may actually increase, not decrease in the next decade.

On April 24, 2008 a sizable army of Apogeeans – the Apogee Army of Altruism –set off for the southern most tip of Austin to volunteer at the Capital Area Food Bank of Texas (CAFB).

The eighteen or so of us arrived at CAFB and made our way to the holding area to sign in and place name tags on our chests. With that difficult part of the volunteering experience out of the way our guide and host Xavier gave an overview of CAFB’s operations. Brief overview: the Food Bank is, in essence, a distribution center. Food is not handed out on-site, but rather local charities and non-profit groups place food orders, drive to CAFB in trucks, cars and trailers, pick up their orders and then provide the direct service of feeding Central Texans from their charity or non-profit organization.

It’s time to head to the Product Recovery Room. We walk through two sets of doors and into a 60,000 square foot warehouse. The ceilings live way up in the sky. It holds approximately 1.5 million pounds of food – the CAFB ships around 2.5 million pounds per month. Finally, we reach two massive swinging doors that lead to the chilly Product Recovery. We’re ushered to the back corner of the recovery room. Look up. There’s a large instruction guide hanging from the wall. It contains all of the dos and don’ts – clean all cans and pass them down the conveyor belt, check adult and baby formula for specific date guidelines, et cetera – feel free to sing along with the radio blaring in the other corner.

After a bit of a rocky start, everyone got the hang of it and we soon started cleaning, categorizing, caching the food into boxes and stacking for delivery at The Flash speed. By the time Xavier told us students to put our pencil down, we had managed to process 10,276 pounds of food that equals 8,220 meals. Hopefully, we’ll surpass that benchmark on our next trip to the Capital Area Food Bank of Texas!

First Microsoft gives Yahoo a deadline of this weekend to begin negotiations or face a hostile tackover, then reveals that maybe they don’t want Yahoo anyways.

This is beginning to look like one of my high school dating relationships.

Suffice it to say that Yahoo beating its projected numbers this week throws a new wrinkle in things. All the sudden, “nothing happens” is looking like a viable outcome.

Like a soap opera, things are heating up between Microsoft and Yahoo, complete with threats, machinations, and denials. As things stand right now, I see five possible outcomes.

1) Nothing happens.
Very unlikely. Yahoo’s numbers aren’t there right now, and an attempt to stay the course would create considerable unrest amongst Yahoo shareholders.

2) Microsoft purchases Yahoo in a friendly takeover.
Possible, but unlikely. I just don’t see the two finding a number that is large enough for Yahoo’s board, yet small enough for Microsoft.

3) Microsoft purchases Yahoo in a hostile takeover.
Possible, but a poor outcome for both. Microsoft and Yahoo would have a hard enough time merging cultures in a friendly acquisition. The resentment of a hostile takeover would make successful integration impossible. The net-net would be marketshare lost to Google by the combined entity.

4) Yahoo outsources its advertising to Google.
Attractive, but unlikely. Yahoo is testing these waters right now. One can argue that this would be the best outcome for Yahoo shareholders, but I doubt either the US or EU trade commissions would get on-board.

5) TimeWarner rolls AOL into Yahoo.
Most likely. Either this deal, or a similar deal that greatly increases Yahoo’s advertising inventory, is probably going to happen. This would assuage the shareholders’ fears, at least for a while. Whether or not Yahoo can show long term growth, however, is a legitimate concern.

Much has been made about yesterday’s forecast of the SEM Industry. Long story short: things are pretty good, or in the words of Larry David: “Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty good.” According to Radar Research and SEMPO the SEM industry was projected to grow to an $11.6 billion industry in 2007, however that number grew to $12.2 billion by the end of Q4. These numbers had a domino effect on the 2011 forecast that was projected to be at $18.6 billion a year ago. Now North American SEM spending is projected to grow to $25.2 billion by 2011.

However the survey also shows that much of this increase is a backlash from marketers finding more search dollars by poaching budgets from print, website development, direct mail, and other traditional ad platforms. While this is an easy correlation to make given the current state of the US economy, it seems as though the enormity of advances in technology and services are given the short end of the stick due to the always-looming recession. Below are some more reasons why SEM will continue to grow, recession or no recession.

Social Media- Even though playing the social media card in the first hand is now a cliché, there’s no denying that next to Google, everyone has to be on MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, Digg, and/or the next big thing. Businesses that have no clue how to operate social media pages are taking advantage of anything they can get their hands on. Even the AARP has tapped into Facebook and YouTube to help plant the seed of future membership http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6483871557

Goolge Innovation- New link reporting tools, personalized search, universal search, Google Health, Google News in Hindi etc., etc. Google’s innovation drives the search engine market and also forces other engines to play catch-up or innovate themselves. As much flack as I’ve given to MSN’s Live Search games there’s no doubt that they’ve helped the fledgling search engine’s numbers in the past year.

Proliferation of Industry Blogs- I can’t think of any other industry where knowledge is so firmly steeped in learning from your contemporaries. A novice can spend a week on industry blogs and be able to glean an adequate amount of information to start their own SEO or PPC campaign.

Advancements in Ad Platforms- Paid search platforms are constantly being updated in every search engine, and while the Radar Research report concluded that Google and Yahoo paid search spending decreased from a year ago, these updates will only continue to make paid search an easier, more viable solution for advertisers on a budget. Plus with Automatic Matching, Google is destined to up their Adwords profit, wink.

Advancements in Portal Platforms- I can Google from my Wii. Enough said. Wherever there is a signal there is Google, Yahoo, MSN, YouTube, Facebook or a combination of the five. With this kind of exposure advertisers, both big and small, are clearly noticing that the reach of the web is on a constant climb.

Etc. Etc. Etc… - There is an infinite list of reasons why SEM has risen to unprecedented proportions in the past year, and an economic hiccup is only one of them. While this report helps prove that our industry is in the clear for now, it still does not grasp the scale of innovation, adaptation, and proliferation that the SEM industry has accomplished within the past year to cause this major shift in ad spend.

The Paid Search world was in a tizzy last week over the announcement of Google’s beta testing for its new Automatic Matching (AM) feature for AdWords. Below is Google’s explanation of the tools’ functions, and just for fun, see if you can guess what two words triggered the uproar.

“Automatic Matching automatically extends your campaign’s reach by using surplus budget to serve your ads on relevant search queries that are not already triggered by your keyword lists. By analyzing the structure and content of your website and AdWords campaigns, we deliver more impressions and clicks while maintaining your current CTRs and CPCs.”

So with the news that Google would be using advertiser’s “surplus budget” to fund this feature, the paid search blogosphere exploded with claims that Google will inevitably thrust a money-grab onto its advertisers. Compounding these claims was the ComScore report that came out a day before the AM tool was announced showing Google’s advertisements in the US last month were down 0.3% year-on-year.

So is this a money-grab, or is this just remarkably bad timing for a feature that could benefit Adwords advertisers? In an attempt to reason with the angry mob I’ve listed some quick pros and cons. Hopefully this post will save a liquor store or two.

PRO: This is only a beta test that a small, select number of advertisers are using, and can opt out of at any time. In fact I think this is the biggest pro of them all because after feedback is given, Google can either tweak AM’s problems or ultimately scrap the tool leaving it in the same boat as Googlesheets.

CON: Relevance is not measured by the advertiser. In an example as to how the feature works Google states: “If you sold Adidas shoes on your website, Automatic Matching would automatically crawl your landing page and target your campaigns to queries such as: “shoes” “adidas” “athletic”, etc., and less obvious ones such as “slippers” that our system has determined will benefit you and likely lead to a conversion on your site.” While I’m sure the AM does not override negative keyword listings will the potential leads/sales for unrelated search terms without a bid be worth an individual advertiser’s spend?

PRO: Relevance is not measured by the advertiser. While paid search vets think they can out smart a machine (and most can), a regular mom and pop user with limited experience is usually bidding on a small amount of keywords because they simply do not know any better.

CON: If an AM search result click does not turn into a lead or sale, it’s ultimately Google’s fault, and you end up paying for their mistake

PRO: The AM queries will appear on you search reports, which in turn will provide a source of untapped keywords to monetize.

CON: Nearly the same results can be gleaned by using Google’s keyword research tool without having to risk your budget’s surplus.

PRO: There has never been a time when AdWords has forced advertisers to use a feature that directly benefits their bottom line.

Yes, AM does siphon funds out of a budget surplus, but if you choose to add this feature it’s ultimately your decision. Furthermore Google states that, “AM will never exceed your budget.” While results of this test will more than likely vary across the board I’m sure a certain amount of advertisers (probably small time) will find this tool helpful, while other, experienced advertisers will choose to opt out and run their own campaign.

Continuing the series of keynotes about the future of search, today we’ll be hearing “Generating Next: Search in the Coming Decade”. Unlike the previous panels, this is a panel moderated by Chris Sherman and Gord Hotchkiss. Panel members are Brad Goldberg (Microsoft), Larry Heck (Yahoo), and Peter Norvig (Google).

Question: Will search as we know it today survive?
Larry: When I got in last night, I popped in a cab. The cab driver asked what show I was going to. I said it was a search show. He complained that search is so bad today. “You click and you go back. Click and go back, and never find what you want.” Search will survive, but it must evolve.
Peter: Search will both be more central and more in the background.
Brad: I would break it into two pieces: what the user sees and what is going on in the background. I think we’ve got a good foundation with what is going on in the background, and we’re not going to throw that away. What will change is the user experience.

Question: How do we interact with this huge store of information as humans?
Brad: Changes in interface will force changes all the way down the technology stack. The query information of a voice driven search will likely be different than for text searches.
Peter: The average query will be longer.

Question: What are the implications for search marketers?
Larry: The most exciting opportunities will be as mobil advertising starts to open up. Today it’s a niche.
Peter: Mobile has a tiny screen, so you may not have room for an ad, if you’re going to give the searcher what they want. The ad may have to be served later.

Question: How smart can search get in the next fve years?
Peter: We’re just getting started, and there’s a lot on which we can get better. Such as actually understanding the content. We’re just getting into other media.
Larry: I wonder how much the initial SERP will evolve. A lot of it will come back to users being more sophisticated. Much will be around the user experience.
Brad: How much more effective is the coupling between user and machine going to become? This will make the difference.

Question: Are we expecting too much from users?
Larry: For the last fifteen years, search has been horizontal. Even today, most of the searches are navigational queries. Most page views, however, are within vertical websites.

Question: Speaking of verticals, local search has been held out as the most promising of verticals for some time, but frankly it’s still horrible. What are the problems preventing local search from being good?
Peter: We have to get the content.
Brad: The mom and pop shops need to understand that this is an option.
Peter: One of you guys in the audience needs to come up with a model where a high school student walks down the row of businesses, knocks on their doors, and convinces them that they can help the company become listed.

Question: One can argue that if you truly do improve search algorithms to the point where users get everything they need, there may not be room for advertisers. How will they co-exist?
Brad: There are a lot of economic reasons for that balance to be maintained.
Peter: The advertisers have to provide something of value, that meet the users’ needs.

Question: I want to touch on personalization a bit. We’ve heard that personalization is really hard, and it seems that Google may have backed off a bit from it. How good does it have to be to improve on where we are now?
Peter: Most times people are searching for something new. Personalization won’t help with this. It will help with certain tasks. We’ll see it be more fragmented.
Brad: The challenge of personalization is that you have to have a lot of data about that user, and you have to use it the right way.

Question: With blended search, it seems that search marketers have less and less influence over where their ads show. Do you see this increasing?
Peter: I see this as an opportunity. You can push more types of content via advertising.
Brad: Things will become more like advertising on a regular webpage. It will be a more rich experience. Except that the intent will be more clear.

Question: What area is particularly of interest to you when you look at the interface between humans and the internet?
Peter: The biggest area is the mobile space and figuring out how we get away from being chained to the desktop.

Question: Five years from today, what one technology would you like to have working?
Larry: For me, the one thing would be allowing people to search in more of a vertical way.
Peter: I want to focus on the user experience.
Brad: I want to have access to search everywhere. When you leave the desktop and get in your car, you want to have access to the same functionality.

Just Behave, A Look At Searcher Behavior
Wednesday, February 27, 4:45pm-6:00pm

Moderator: Gord Hotchkiss, President and CEO, Enquiro
Q&A Moderator: Gillian Muessig, President, SEOmoz

Speakers:
Michael Furgeson, Senior User Experience Analyst, Ask.com
Laura Granka, User Experience Research, Google
Ben Hanna, Vice President, Marketing, Business.com

It’s late on Day Two, and live blogging is a young person’s sport, so I don’t expect the amount of detail to be quite to the level of the earlier keynotes I blogged. I’ll likely focus more on what I believe to be the more important points.

That said, this is a topic I’ve really wanted to see. Search behavior is obviously an important aspect of where the search engines are going with relevancy. Understanding how users interact act with search engines, however, is of critical importance to a search marketing in general. The panelists are all representatives of the search engines themselves, so I hope they’ll let us see things from the inside.

Gordon points out that human working (short term) memory has three to seven slots. Some of these slots are generally already filled, but not all of them. Many people use search to fill the rest of these slots.

When looking at a SERP, users tend to look at the first three or four listings on the left. This often includes a combination of organic and paid listings.

Michael from Ask.com goes next. He is going to discuss transactive memory and searcher behavior.

The brain uses a “squadron of simpletons” to interpret reality.

People use their personal networks to access information. Essentially, we “store” that info with other people. This is transactive memory.

Search is becoming a part of transactive memory. The pages you find are a lot like going up to someone who is an expert on the topic. It generally isn’t interactive, however. They can’t give you advice catered to your situation, or debug your computer.

Michael thinks that will come, however. The individual pages need to evolve to be more like a trusted expert in your network.

Now Ben from Business.com is up. He’s going to cover “searching for me versus searching for my company” and provide some oberservations about B2B “search” from different online contexts.

People are influenced by context. We can’t do everything, so we respond to what’s most salient.

Context can affect:

• Risk taking versus conservatism
• Being action-oriented versus passive
• Persistence on a task
• Beliefs about others
• Beliefs about ourselves
• Sense of time

This results effectively in having multiple selves. Each can have unique searching behavior.

Laura from Google is up. She’s going to discuss their internal research.

Search is an acquired skill. Users often start overly broad, searching for “television” for instance. Google addresses this with refinements, helping the user to drill down. Alternative searches might also be offered.

Users tend to rely on trusted/familiar sites. Site Links attempt to address this by providing users with access deeper into a site.

Selecting a good result is hard. Bias is to the results at the top of the page, regardless of actual quality.

Users don’t always know what’s searchable online. Universal Search is an attempt to address this.

Sometimes people just want a quick answer. Certain queries on Google return the actual answer instead of a page.

Question: What does it mean if we search for “televisions”, having a particular brand in our head such as “Sony”, and we don’t find Sony in the results?
Michael: People are adaptable. We tend to get more enjoyment out of things that are complex.
Laura: If you have the word “Sony” in your head, it will still be there and you’ll probably use that in a later search.
Ben: Search does not get as much credit for brand impact as it should.
Gord: If people don’t see the brands they expect, they tend to discount the relevancy of the entire results set.

Question: Data in an earlier seminar suggested that searchers are becoming less patient. Does your data reflect this?
Laura. Yes and no. As we get more gadgets, our need to get data quickly is increasing.
Michael: Customer experience has become more important over time.
Ben: Search has crossed the chasm, and the masses are searching.