Yahoo SERP delivering Bing's organic results

The Yahoo! and Microsoft Search Alliance announced that Yahoo’s organic search results (English language in the U.S. and Canada) have switched over and are now being powered by Bing – the latest step in their combined battle with Google.  The first question that marketers should ask is, “How will this affect me?”  The answer to that will depend on a number of factors, not least how you currently rank on Bing versus Yahoo. Add the positive or negative swing you may see in traffic for Yahoo in the coming month, and another question many marketers will be asking — given the increase in market share for Bing-powered results, is, “Should I change my website optimization to cater more to Bing?”  The short answer is – no.

Trust the Data
Website owners should review their search analytics and ranking reports to ascertain if they are having success in Google for the keyword phrases they are targeting.  If the website is already ranked more highly on Google than on Bing or Yahoo and Google is driving substantial traffic to your site, you wouldn’t dream of changing that. As such, it is not in your best interest to re-optimize your website to suit Bing over a market share that is under half that of Google.  If the website was previously only having success on Yahoo and all of your traffic was coming from there, then it is likely that you were in need of some further search engine optimization (SEO) for Google and Bing in the first place.

How will it work?
While Bing’s results will be powering Yahoo, both websites will deliver their results differently – it is understood that 22 of the 24 factors that make up a Yahoo results page will still be controlled by Yahoo. As an example, Bing currently provides their “quick access” data and “share” capabilities in some results, while Yahoo will be taking the underlying organic results and delivering them with a Yahoo-twist. This may include any number of extra features such as extra imagery or a NASDAQ ticker symbol, as well as their own related searches and search suggestions, rather than Bing’s.

Continue reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

We are close to 60 days from the formal transition of most advertisers to the Bing platform as part of the Yahoo-Bing search results merger. Over the next two months a lot of ink will be spilled about the expected impact, with prognostications about the ability of the combination to challenge Google and what could go wrong (which would make the former topics moot). In advance of this, I want to give you one early indicator why this combination is something different from what most in the search space are used to seeing.

Over the past few weeks representatives from Yahoo and Bing have visited search marketing agencies with a series of updates on the transition. These updates include status items such as progress reports, timing and checklists of things to do before the big switch. As these visits were taking place, a formal release was made public with appropriate quotes from each party. With the pending shift less than two months away, the knowns are finally outweighing the unknowns. And that brings me to an important revelation that matters for advertisers today, but may also be significant in the search marketplace for tomorrow.

Yahoo and Microsoft are listening to advertisers and their agencies. In this business it is common practice to hear what advertisers have to say, but then listen to consumers. Google built its highly successful search business by putting nothing above the consumer experience and providing the highest relevance possible to those individuals who use the service. This has created consistent friction with advertisers, who want to find a more productive way into the process than just cutting a check to show up when Google decides it best for the end user. Unfortunately for advertisers, while the Google model has been successful, historically it has not produced the kind of game-changing innovation in ad formats or opportunities that get advertisers to make dramatic shifts in how they allocate budgets or think about a channel.

Continue reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Tonight, LeBron James, the basketball superstar and marketing machine, will announce where he will play his home games in the future. For the first seven years of his NBA career, The Chosen One has played for his hometown team, the Cleveland Cavaliers. Now, King James, as he is also known, will chose to either stay with Cleveland or move on to another team, possibly Miami, Chicago or New York. The brand of LeBron is significant. For 2009, James’ estimated endorsement deals totaled $28MM placing him third among all athletes and the #1 basketball player globally. With his pending decision the brand should be growing stronger, more beloved and inching LeBron closer to the hallowed territory of His Airness, Michael Jordan. Jordan, the first great Nike-engineered superstar had a brand that was unsurpassed and still, to this day, is the gold standard for athletes.

This move was to signal the second coming, if not on the basketball court, then certainly across homes around the world of what a superstar athlete can deliver from a personal brand to corporate brands. With that as the backdrop it is staggering to look at the complete airball that LeBron is shooting in the social space leading up to this decision. Let’s break down how the Brand of LeBron has fared poorly in furthering his brand.

Even personal brands don’t get that social media is about the community
On Tuesday, LeBron James officially joined Twitter. Within 24 hours nearly 24,000 people were following @KingJames. So far there have been 2 tweets, one announcing LeBron’s arrival on the platform and the second wishing everyone a good Wednesday morning. In one sense this sums up the value exchange and worth of Twitter for many. On the other hand it paints a stark contrast to the efforts by companies like RadioShack together with athletes like Lance Armstrong and his @livestrong work. Armstrong is LiveStrong and through that support and affiliation with select corporate brands people are now associating him with his Team RadioShack cycling efforts and their combined efforts against cancer. Could this become LeBron’s future on the platform and in a  broader social way? Sure, but the Brand of LeBron is clearly about just that – LeBron at this moment. When the value exchange is so cheap, a follower on Twitter is making no emotional or financial commitment and you often get back what you put in, which is nothing. The brands that have figured out Twitter and other key social platforms are the ones putting more into the community than just themselves.

Continue reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

“The user interface on Google has changed very little since its inception,
and I think it’s their core vulnerability.”
- Irwin Gotlieb, Global CEO, GroupM

Irwin Gotlieb was quoted in an article for India’s The Economic Times discussing the future competition that would challenge Google’s dominance. Gotlieb suggested that the challenge was likely to come from an unknown in a garage somewhere; he doubted the it be on the algorithm front but rather the user-experience side.

The timing of this article had a fabulous intersection for what was one of the most memorable sporting days in U.S.-England history. Simultaneously, the USA and England soccer (futbol, if prefer) teams were playing for their lives in the World Cup. England carried through with a 1-0 win over Slovenia only to see their pesky afterthought competitors from the U.S. score a stoppage time goal from Landon Donovan to win the Group over England.

As remarkable as the U.S. outcome was, it was not even close to the most amazing U.S.-England sports outcome of the day – and an interesting example of how the commentary about Google’s blind spot could eventually be exposed.

Continue reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and published on MediaBizBloggers, Tuesday, June 22, 2010. Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.

In preparation for this column, I asked the head of my research team at GroupM Search to find a few data points about the difference between true search engines and places where people can search, in addition to other things. The subject line for his reply was “Top ‘Search’ Properties.” His reply provided some of the data I’ll cover in this column, but it also highlighted a major challenge we are now facing in the search space.

Consumers express their intention throughout the digital graph, and our ability to position brands as a proper response is the key to success for advertisers. Today we focus on how much share of voice we can buy in traditional search locations. Every year, studies come out showing the lack of success major brands have in the SEO realm. This bodes ill if they are to take the premise of this column forward into their business. Because whether you consider YouTube or Facebook a “search” property or not, the reality is consumers’ expression of intent is being facilitated through searching and selection on every major site from FourSquare to Twitter to Digg.

The brand opportunity is no longer determining how a brand lives and is found through the sole volume of Google or the full search engine landscape. Rather, the opportunity for brands exists in a broader, more complex group of sites with vastly different approaches to optimization and exposure. Take a look at the chart below from comScore for top “search” properties, noting the volume on sites beyond the Big Three engines:

Continue reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!