Source: SEOHome (via SearchCowboys) – UK Results

Source: SearchCowboys – NL Results

The option by Google to change both of these certainly could significantly change results particularly where users rely on localising results. Whilst the UK market would probably only account for about 20% of searches (not official stats), what about mainstream Europe, places such as Belgium or Switzerland where countries may often have more than one language. Removing the obvious filter could have a significant impact on ease of use – one of the main things that I personally believe Google do better than any other mainstream search engine.

I haven’t yet been able to verify such behaviour (despite trying to utilise a number of contacts around Europe – thanks in particular here to Fellow SearchCowboy @basvandenbeld), however I will be watching this test closely over the next couple of days. Whether or not this will kill local search is open to debate – certainly localised results have been more and more integrated into regional (ie .co.uk) searches for a while – even without the impact of the ’search pages from the uk only’ option. In addition to this, Google have recently release the ability to show options which allow users to filter yet further within the search results, and I would suggest this would be an obvious choice to integrate any further localised filtering.

The incorporation of 'show options into mainstream results

For those who may be concerned you will be glad to hear that Google will not be penalising your site any time soon, instead where priority has been set at the same level (or not provided at all), Google will look to determine the priority of the pages themselves

Google plus box on entry

On entry, paid search ads which incorporate Google plus box results, show as normal bar a + icon and link to click for the enhanced results. Users clicking on this link will then be presenting with around three results taken from the advertiser, which have a significant impact on browser experience and obviously the impact of any organic results which may be appearing on the page as a result.

Google plus box result activated. Note the impact of the result

So how do you optimise for these results. As you may know Google Product results are often ‘populated’ by XML feeds from Google Base.

1) Have a high quality Google Base Feed (and obviously remember to submit it). Make sure this is accurate, comprehensive thus ensuring you have current prices, no out of stock items, real images etc)

2) Within your paid search campaign, ensure you have a range of product related terms, not just brand, core generic and long tail terms. Google Plus box results often appear on these types and terms, and above all are likely to be far more successful in terms of conversion.

3) Use analytics such as GA to measure your conversions on product pages. By doing so you can focus your attention on those keywords that really drive you the conversion/visibility.

4) Make sure your campaign receives a lot of search impressions. IF your campaign is not receiving a high volume of impressions, it is unlikely you will get much traction from this.

I would add to conclude, this has already been stopped in the US, and one would suggest that it is only a matter of time before this is stopped in the UK (although knowing Google it is likely this will be back at some point in the future. Thus I would suggest any work on this should be considered, however with Google Product results already incorporated into main blended (product-related) searches and thus this is really an extention of any Base related optimisation.

1. A logo/badge that site owners can use on their site should they wish
2. Resources -  A list is only as good as the quality of its content. If you think your search marketing/social media/online pr blog is any good forward it to us , and let us add you to the list.

If you would like to help with any of the areas above, simply forward an email to info[at]holisticsearch[dot]co[dot]uk

The current Top Search Marketing Resources List can be found here

(PS We have populated up to M at present – more to follow soon)

Fancy a new job????

A case of someone having a laugh – or freak occurance? You decide….

Source: Searchengineland.com

Whether Google Wave changes digital communications in the same way Google changed search engines is a different matter, Googles timing of the launch of Wave was clearly designed to reduce coverage of the launch of Bing, something they have achieved in droves, and at the same time made those looking to cover the initial Bing launch choose between the two – ie the Next Google Yahoo killer (and then maybe Google in the future) or the next big communication tool (and perhaps a Microsoft IM killer in the process) – one has to say its an interesting scenario.

Source: Searchengineland.com

That is something that certainly wasn’t lost on press coverage. Rather than devote entire coverage to the launch of the Bing search engine, they now had to choose between the two. This is something we have come to expect from Google, having seen similar ‘Guerilla’ announcements previously in particular prior to the launch of Cuil where Google announced a significant increase in the amount of content indexed, something which was the cornerstone of the Cuil product. 1-0 to Google before a ball has even been kicked.

There is no doubting that the level of coverage regarding Bing will significantly increase again over the coming weeks as more people get access to the new search engine (in particular us UK search marketing types), however Google certainly has – as the title suggested – rained on Googles parade.

As part of our ongoing Guest Post series, James Hanson explores whether Wolfram Alpha can be considered a serious rival to Google

Every other week a new search engine gets released and is touted in the “mass media” as a Google rival, but ask anyone to remember the name of the new engine in a couple of weeks and I doubt if they can, let alone use it.

So another week and another new launch this weeks is Wolfram Alpha – hailed by the BBC on its new Home page as ” a significant rival to search giant Google” – ( I wonder if the BBC also reports every time a new shop opens somewhere in the UK, as it being latest rival to Tesco?)

So how is Wolfrem different its called a computation knowledge engine but what does that mean – well instead of sending you results and links to other internet pages (a search engine) it give you direct answers to queries you type in (although at the moment it’s a little US centric). The results are a little geeky, lots of graphs and stats – its more of a Wikipedia than, a Google.

So a noble try by a small start up, but destined to rival Google, probably not.

In the last couple of weeks Ask re-introduced the butler in a new multi million pound advertising campaign – but even this is good for Google, as in the UK they get advertising revenue as their sponsored ads appear on Ask.

Yahoo are still in decline and MSN never really took off.

At the end of all this we get back to the question, can anyone topple Google? – my answer John Connor !!

James Hanson is a PPC Specialist at MVi in Manchester. Follow all James thoughts at twitter.com/jamesehanson

Speakers include:
Jon Myers – Head of Search – MediaVest
Fellow SearchCowboy Bas Van Den Beld – Searchscape: Latest Stats About The Search Engines
Andrew Girdwood – BigMouthMedia – Understanding Searcher Needs & Intent (Suprised to see two Bigmouths on the panel – personally would have preferred to say a ‘difference’ in opinions)
Mel Carson – Microsoft – Brand & Reputation Management Strategies
Dixon Jones – Receptional – Paid Search & Tricky Issues
Ciaran Norris – Altogether Digital – What’s New With Social Media Marketing
Lisa Ditlefsen – Verve Digital – SEO Checkup
Dave Naylor – Bronco – Give it up!

One panel not to miss is certainly the ‘Blow your mind link building’ containing SEM twitterati such as Rand Fishkin, Patrick Altoft and Lyndon Antcliff early on day 2.

A full breakdown of the agenda can be found here.

As one of SMX London’s official blog partners, we are proud to announce that we are able to offer Holistic Search readers 15% off. To take advantage of the offer simply go to http://searchmarketingexpo.com/london/2009/register use the following code:

PEYOUK09

A secondary impact of the loss of such deals is probably more notable, particularly when you consider the lack of ‘competition’ in the sector. Lose Yahoo and you only really have  a choice of three – in realistic terms two search engines to choose from namely MSN and Google. Given Google’s dominance in the market, I would suggest there is only one suitable competitor and that competitor happens to be your nearest rival in terms of market share.

It is indeed further noticeable that Microsoft have indeed been quick to exploit these opportunities. Partnerships with HP (replacing previous engine of choice Yahoo) and Dell will have given Microsoft some added impetus – and the potential to immediately target around 55% of PC shipments in the US. With Google continuing to dominate the search landscape it is increasingly becoming a race for second place, something neither engine has managed to make a clear move on.

Yahoo have been quick to suggest that the loss of such parternships shouldn’t affect market share as much as the above report would have us believe suggesting “consumers will continue to use Yahoo search even if they buy a new computer pre-loaded with a rival’s toolbar.”. I personally would suggest the only engine that could guarantee that level of loyalty would be Google, and that taking that for granted in the current climate is possibly a bit foolhardy – particularly given the apparant focus on search from Microsoft, and even the rise of channels such as Twitter as a search engine of sorts.

Whilst the US search engine market is very different to that of the UK, the share of Google being far higher in the UK, I would suggest this could still have some significant knock on effects. With Google still taking nothing for granted, in a continual drive towards further relevance (and lets face it increased revenues), the other two need to continue to be innovative in order to attract both advertisers and searchers alike to utilise them more. Lets be brutal both of them could do no worse by starting at:

• Looking further afield. The world doesn’t end at the US, new products are generally slow at moving to foreign markets (if at all).
• Giving users value add. I am always disappointed by the relevance of a number of searchers on both engines – and whilst I personally use them more than most – it comes through a requirement of considerable data mining more than anything
• Giving advertisers value add. In my opinion natural search battles is continually ongoing. Monetising and ‘Management’ or organic search and digital asset value adds would seem to be natural progression
• Hitting new channels hard. Google in particular seem to be pushing mobile hard. The other two need to be hitting this – harder!!

Search engines can’t take anything for granted. Lets just take a look at Altavista. They have to continue to evolve – otherwise things can change and change very quickly. I personally would expect a very different landscape in 5-10 years, but I guess only time will tell.

Localised results with Google SERPS

The results currently appear below the fold, in the example below the results were below the video search results. Further searches were run for:

1. Golf Clubs
2. Cinema
3. Movie
4. Football (not soccer)
5. Advertising Agency

This would appear a fairly widespread test from what I have seen thus far, and it will be interesting to see whether this remains a permanent part of the Google search results page. It could really throw the cats amongst the pigeons should it stay about, pushing local search optimisation into the mainstream of many organisations SEO and blended search campaigns

According to the release on adAge

According to one person close the situation, the forthcoming campaign will be careful to not position “Kumo” as a competitor to Yahoo or Google and instead cast it as a reimagined search engine that ups the game by yielding fewer but more-focused results. The proposed strategy is probably a good — if not the only — way to go.

Many search-industry watchers say the only way to challenge Google, the current category leader, will be to present something markedly different. The thing is, at first glance, screenshots of “Kumo” don’t look too different from the current search format used by most major search engines: organic search results in the main part of the page, with sponsored links across the top and the right side. The new Microsoft interface does appear to have some interesting filtering features, both in the organic-results area and along the left side of the page, to help searchers drill down into more specific topics.

As previous experience will tell us, significant spending on advertising is not a guarantee of success. Ask.com have spent significant amounts on above the line advertising in the past, with limited (and varying degrees of success). It is therefore not a given that this shift in spend to focus on the search product will indeed bear any fruits, and given them any traction within the search marketplace.

Indeed, success in my opinion may lie elsewhere, and even closer to home. Microsoft themselves have launched a number of innovative new products and solutions in the last couple of months, something which may provide the key to greater market share. Products such as Cash Back and some of the other new products/features may help gartner greater usaage of the search engine, however greater uptake is going to rely heavily on the quality of the search product – particularly when compared to the Google product itself which has seen some significant enhancements over the last couple of weeks.

Commentators suggest a more successful approach may be to partner with Yahoo, however whether this is enough to compete against Google is a different question. In my personal opinion the biggest battleground is that for second and third place . Is the $100 million enough to compete against Google – no. Is it enough to help compete against Yahoo – possibly. Only time will tell.

Other articles on this subject:

Microsoft to throw $100 million at their search market share problem – Search Engine Land

[The views in this post are those of Peter Young, and not necessarily those of his employers]

In the final frame of the ad, the viewer is prompted to search for ‘MVA’. Now I am a big fan of prompting viewers to integrate with search for four main reasons

1. Many browsers ‘multi-task’ . That is they watch television whilst browsing the internet.
2. Search phrases are often easier to remember than domains
3. Potential for greater interaction with potential browsers – PPC, Organic and Blended search results
4. Ability to track the influence of the advert.

However the implementation of such campaigns is done very badly, and sadly Monsters vs Aliens is no different. There have already been a number of posts regarding its implementation on Google primarily, mostly regarding the PPC, however it is the lack of organic placement that is a secondary concern. With a rough 75% (organic)/25% (paid) breakdown it hugely suprises me that organic is often a forgotten channel in these campaigns leaving these types of campaigns open to cannabalisation from competitors (albeit limited in the MVA example) and limited impact.

And talking of limited impact, I would add that I would suggest that is exactly what the MVA implementation will be having. Whilst there is no doubt it will inspire users to search…

… What about those searches on Yahoo

Monsters vs Aliens advertising on Yahoo - erm Where??????

and MSN

Monsters vs Aliens on MSN

Now admittedly Google is the majority shareholder as far as search volumes in the UK is concerned however that doesn’t mean Yahoo and MSN should be ignored, particularly if the premise of the campaign is to encourage people to search for the campaign. After all by ignoring the other two engines, surely you are getting a slightly inaccurate reflection of the impact the ad has had on search engine traffic?

It should also be noted the impact it appears to have had as far as searches are concerned.

Impact on search trends

Just imagine the impact it could have had if:

• They had complimented the paid search ad with an organic ad
• They had thought better through the PPC creative
• They had run the ad on multiple engines.
• Considered the impact of blended search. Video search optimisation should have been a given….

Many of these campaigns are still in their infancy, with many organisations still in early rollouts, however one would suggest they may want to think about what they want to get out of the campaign – and develop a campaign best suited to maximising those targets.

At present too many of these campaigns, appear half thought out and half implemented and as such I would suggest are only getting half the returns they could be getting. Moving forward greater integration (and greater thought) is required – if these integrated campaigns are to be a fully effective marketing strategy.

Source: Dave Naylor

Testing of the ads was first reported on Search Engine Land highlighting testing in Poland and Germany, however recent observations have been reported in the US and the UK suggesting a much broader test.

Given the recent ‘Vince update’, one can’t be suprised with the increased focus on brand within the search results, particularly given the recent ‘improvements’ to the search pages – in particular the increased snippet lengths rolled out last week. I would suggest the increased snippet lengths, the reduced organic search results and the incorporation of blended search must be dragging eyefall (and subsequent CTR) away from paid sources, thus the incorporation of such a visual component can only have a positive impact on CTR for paid search ads.

Other articles on the Google Adwords favicon testing

Dave Naylor – Online Bingo ads in Google

Search Engine Land – Google expands Adwords fav icon test

Kerstin Baker-Ash – Google uses new partner icons in paid search results

Note: The post below is meant to push your buttons, make you think. There are more questions than answers. But there are times when we need to question, and I think this is one of them.

For time immemorial, there have been secret organisations. Some of these organisations are rumoured to have existed for centuries, descending into a mix between myth and urban legend. (Cue: Illuminati).

However, we least expected to find them in our midst. Meeting in secret with one of the world’s most powerful organisation. An organisation that could take down Economies of several countries at one blow. I am not paranoid – it’s true. These meetings most likely decide how you and I work. They probably influence our strategies for the future. We just didn’t know. These societies are by invite only, and no one except for the members and organisers really knows who attends them.

We don’t see any minutes, any updates, hell, not even the agenda. We don’t know how much of our life is being influenced by them.

No I am not going mad and waxing lyrical pointlessly. I am talking about the company that many of us battle daily. Google.

Yesterday Search Engine Land published Big Brand Media Wants A Google Bailout. One of the more interesting parts of the story is that Google has a Publishers Advisory Council. Did you know it existed? What goes on in these meetings? Why do only the big boys get to know? Is this unfair market advantage?

But the GPAC isn’t the ONLY secret council that google has. In 2007, Darren Rowse published Secret AdSense Online Advisory Council Revealed, which exposed the birth or emergence of the GAOAC. I can’t find a members list, an agenda, or any resolutions or learnings from this council.

In Feb 2009, George Michie from the Rimm Kaufman Group Revealed that he had been invited to join the Google SEM Advisory Panel. That makes GSAP, and number three secret society. I don’t know how many more there are.

My question to all of you out there is – Why not keep it all out in the open? After all, the proudly published the formation of the Google Health Advisory Council. Is this unfair advantage for the big guys? Are these the new Illuminati? Do they impact our work?

I reserve opinion, but I am sure my tone gives you an inkling as to what I think. This is food for though.

As a by note – Yahoo has also joined the ranks in forming secret councils

Rishi Lakhani is a Search Marketing Strategist. Feel free to follow him on twitter.

As with most people, our purchase process began with research. A simple search for kitchens was the starting point for the purchase, and a number of initial organisations were shortlisted for further evaluation. In the end we decided to bring a couple in for further discussion including Company A. Company A came into present their product and service, and after a 5 hour sales process we ended up suggesting there was a reasonable likelihood of further progress. That was until further evaluation was undertaken regarding Company A.

Company A brand search results

Such a search however produced a wide range of results, both from generic promotional activity such as Local Directories to the usual republished press articles. However it was the overwhelming response from a number of high profile forums which was the major factor that started ringing alarm bells. It is generally accepted that people only naturally leave comments when they are unhappy with a product or service – however the extent of the feedback was surprising to say the least.

The first 5 results post brand were all review forums, all containing 98% negative feedback regarding the organisation of which 50% contained the term ‘Do not touch this organisation at any cost’ (or variations thereof). Many traditional PR responses are often tailored to one-off responses – however online these responses can manifest themselves within the online brand space for a significant period of time, and can (and do) have a significant effect on both click through rate and ultimately the number of conversions. According to a recent report by Microsoft 9 out of 10 people use the internet for shopping and as a result ignoring these search results is just something that cannot be ignored.

It is therefore surprising little further activity has been reviewed in the circumstances. Certainly PR has its place to play in the whole remediation of this process particularly as the tone of the response in such a circumstance is crucial – and a dearth of 10 best types of kitchens type articles is not the type of response mechanism one should be considering in these circumstances. Instead one should be focussing on:

• Identifying the most vocal contact points. Identify if any brand advocates do exist in these areas. Understand what people are writing about you, and whether there is any truth in what they are saying (honest appraisal is the best approach here)
• Formulate a response where applicable. I would always suggest engagement with a PR Practitioner in these instances as you should only be correcting fact, not entering into a slanging match as this is only likely to compound the problem. Be personable and where applicable personalise this to the target audience – don’t standardise a response – people can tell a mile off.
• Get an Online PR campaign under way. Wires such as PRNewswire are great at hitting touchpoints like Reuters, Bloomberg, Topix and the Press Association (amongst others) – however again it is imperative, you have a good story not just an advert. Keep this regular, a simple one-off will not suffice
• Utilise internal assets. Many organisations have group websites, microsites, subsites etc, all of which could be optimised in their own right in response to such issues. This could allow you to dominate a greater proportion of brand search space than just the typical 2 results (+ sitelinks)
• Engage with social media if applicable (Obviously this will be more applicable to some brands than others), but sites such as Twitter are very quick to respond to breaking news and very viral in nature.
• Work with brand partners. Some of the best instances of such partnerships of this can be found in open source programming areas with hosting providers such as Rackspace providing hosting to PHP.net – saw one recently between Total Jobs and the Home Learning College as well). Often (not necessarily in that last example), these partners can aid with promotional opportunities.
• Don’t forget your PPC. For example, blagger.com (one of the examples in the image above, runs PPC ads at the bottom of the page. Content Network targeting would allow you to run ads on these sites, which via site-targeted would allow you to respond directly to these instances (indirectly)

There are a number of other small things that could be done in these instances, however the main point of this is leaving such feedback to stagnate is not necessarily the best approach. It IS affecting brand perception, it IS affecting your conversion, and it IS affecting your bottom line

Can you really AFFORD to leave it alone?

Given the boom in search engine optimisation over the last couple of years, it is slightly naive in my opinion to believe that the nofollow attribute is going to be used in the way it was designed for. SEO is increasingly a results driven business, and as such is increasingly competitive in nature. As a white hat SEO, there is always the ‘Anakin Skywalker’/dark side conflict going on, as supposedly unethical practises are missed and rewarded by the search engines. Organic search has never been a quick turnaround channel and as such, the process of managing such a process is increasingly difficult.

One of the main issues is establishing intent. Intent in terms of link acquisition is not something that can often be definitely identified, (certainly it is easier to identify some more than others) however there is no way a search engine (or search engine robot) can in *most* cases 100% say that a link is definitely a paid link. As such, I can’t see how you can make a decision (on a whim) that could potentially cost an organisation (or individual) hundreds/thousands/millions (delete as applicable) of pounds.

I have always felt the one brush fits all approach is limited in scope and certainly given the number of potential linkage channels, is certainly not scalable, particularly given the drive towards a semantic web. Many of the current management protocols are based on decade(plus) old technology, which in IT terms is a significant period of time, in which time the internet (and internet behaviour) has changed significantly.

Given the emergence of XFN relationships I can’t help thinking that a more logical and applicable framework couldn’t be developed which took into account different facets of the current online environment, perhaps providing a level of context to the search engines currently beyond the straight nofollow that currently exists.

I will admit much of the rationale above is fairly raw in my own head, however I can’t help thinking that Google need to readdress the way they deal with link relationships whether they be paid links, social media (lets not forget Twittergate), or sponsored conversations in order to provide itself a scalable long term solution.

[This blog post contains the personal thoughts and musings of Peter Young, and not necessarily those of his employers]

To get started, click “Comment View” at the top of your Friends’ shared items in Reader, or just write a comment by clicking “Add comment” at the bottom of any shared item.

If you need any further information as to how comments work, check out the Google Reader blog.

The main problem however is often what constitues SEO in many of these cases. Whilst awareness of SEO and what is good SEO has increased significantly over the last three years or so, there are still a number of services out there which offer nothing more than on-page good practise, without any mention of good content, syndication, link acquisition or the like. Its an observation I have unfortunately had to make on a number of occasions to organisations and realism is often misaligned to their expectations and thus often results in disappointment and disillutionment in the SEO process.

Modern day SEO is a complex undertaking. Gone are the days where search marketeers could get away with tweaking site copy and developing meta tags – today Geo-Targeting, personalisation and the integration of multiple channels are all considerations of the modern day Search engine optimisation specialist. As such the remit of mere on-page optimisation is only a quarter of the job. Gone are the days where search marketeers simply tweak a number of on-page factors such as meta tags.

Don’t get me wrong, physical on-page optimisation of aspects such as title tags, alt tags and the like still have their part to play in best practise optimisation, however they are no longer a major factor in the SEO process, and I would suggest modern day SEO has become a more holistic marketing undertaking, underpinning and enhancing many traditional channels. These days, search awareness can be achieved via the distribution of online PR, the seeding of a campaign via a social media platform such as Facebook. Stumbleupon or Twitter or the development of a channel on Youtube. All are assets that can be optimised online, and work outside of the framework of the main website itself.

As such as and advertiser you need to be thinking multi-faceted. Brand optimisation for many brands is an easy win, and remains one of the remits where some wins can still be achieved via primarily on-page optimisation techniques. As a direct response channel this is probably the biggest win for many larger organisations. However for many organisations, non-brand remains the biggest traffic driver, and with competition often far higher in these areas, success requires a more comprehensive and allround optimisation process.

Don’t get me wrong a site needs to be search engine optimised, however this needs to be put in context. Optimised does not necessarily mean success, unless you are willing to integrate other facets into a holistic search optimisation process and provide your site, with the support mechanisms it needs. If you are thinking search engine optimisation, it is imperative you think beyond just the mere nuts and bolts of your website.

At the end of the day , having a search engine optimised site is just half the story, a bit like having a car without an engine…

“Yahoo Mail is becoming increasingly critical to the company. Yahoo Mail has a billion emails pass through its servers every day and it’s critical that the company enables better photo sharing and other features”

This is further reinforced by some recent data from Hitwise. Yahoo Mail accounts for around 36.71% of visits to Yahoo properties, followed by the portal homepage and quite significantly further back Yahoo Search.  Other Yahoo properties such as Yahoo News and My Yahoo! were in a close knit group back around 3%.

Source: Hitwise

Whats more the Yahoo Mail continues to see growth – 3%, whilst not as big as GMail (88%) still significantly better than that of Windows Live Mail which saw a loss of over 20%. Whilst search continues to struggle against strong competition from MSN – which I must say have a number of interesting new products looming – it is good to see some significant growth from the Yahoo camp.

A summary of Matts comments are:

1. Google doesn’t think of brands, it thinks of things like authority, trust, and pagerank.
2. There has been a change in ranking
3. Simple change NOT an update
4. Change in how they do rankings rather than update
5. Only affects limited subset of results
6. Doesn’t affect vast majority of rankings, like long tail. Will affect specific types of queries
7. Continue developing good quality content, get yourself known as an authority

Interesting response, however doesn’t directly answer the question. It is always good however to see Google’s (and in particular Matts response on this.

Skittles Social Media homepage

The initial response was overwhelming and I would suggest well beyond what Skittles would probably have been expecting, however this turned sour on Tuesday, as a number of ‘Twitter vandals’ started tweeting profanities which ended up on the Skittles homepage. Whether or not this type of activity should have been foreseen by Skittles is another question, however it is unlikely we would have seen the same level of buzz had this been deeper embedded within the site. The whole campaign was based on impact and impact was certainly what it got, however by trusting consumers with content, in a medium where they could not control the conversation – they lost control of the conversation and tone of conversation on a very public forum.

Given the well established nature of the brand, I personally believe it was slightly naive of the brand to undertake such a brave step, however well intentioned it was. That aside, for around 24-36 hours I would suggest Skittles would have been extremely happy, however it was always (imo) a risky manoeuvre – and it proved as such.

For that reason, I would suggest the following lessons should be taken from the campaign:

1. Undertake due diligence before you undertake the campaign. Make sure you understand the full implications of the campaign, including both pros and more importantly cons.
2. Choose your medium carefully. Twitter is the current flavour of the month, but it is an unmoderated forum and as such is not without considerable risk. Other channels such as Facebook or blogs, could provide a far more manageable forum in which to have such a discussion, which could be seeded by channels such as Twitter.
3. Ensure your monitoring tools are in place, you need to know what is happening quickly and effectively. There are a number of online monitoring tools out there including Radian6, Sentiment Metrics,  Market Sentinel,  Trackur, even Google Alerts will suffice.

Despite the fact it has ended slightly unceramouniasly, I can only applaud Skittles on the campaign to a certain extent. If nothing else it has given the rest of us a fantastic case study on social media and the power of word of mouth.

For those of you who have not already heard, where have you been. The last 24 hours or so has been abuzz with Ryanair, to start off with their customer service (or lack of it) with Jason Roe (an Irish based blogger), and more recently with some ill-advised comments regarding bloggers and the blogosphere (or should that be blog sphere).

The comments from Steve McNamara (spokesman (allegedly Head of Communications) from Ryanair) read as follows:

“Ryanair can confirm that a Ryanair staff member did engage in a blog discussion.
“It is Ryanair policy not to waste time and energy corresponding with idiot bloggers and Ryanair can confirm that it won’t be happening again.
“Lunatic bloggers can have the blog sphere all to themselves as our people are far too busy driving down the cost of air travel”.

One has to say, ill-advised or not aside one can’t help thinking that Mr McNamara has not considered the knock on effects. Lets consider some of the facts

1. Much of RyanAirs custom is online
2. Many of those customers use the search engines to find the website
3. Many of those search engine users use Google to find it (given much of their customer base is UK and Western European.

It is therefore interesting to see the impact this is already having on UK SERPs

Ryanair Natural Search results UK

It should already be noted references to Mr McNamaras response can already be found at postions 4,8 and 45 (this after only 24 hours). Given the number of high profile sites picking up on the story, one can’t help feeling there may be a number more entering the fray in the coming weeks. It should also be noted that given the considerable noise generated by Ryanair – a mixture of both good and bad, that this does to a certain extent provide the brand some level of protection – however one can only assume that the level of coverage will increase as this story rumbles over the next couple of days.

Whilst in terms of traditional PR, this is certainly generating the column inches, one can’t help thinking that it is a bit naive (let alone a number of other adjectives I could use) of Mr McNamara with his use of words. In the last 24 hours there have been 1465 references to Ryanair, of which I would suggest the vast majority are on this subject.

I for one will be watching this with interest, as one can’t help think this isn’t the last of the story….

Using TwitterCounter, I have revisisted some of those profiled to see what impact it had, firstly Jon Myers – and one not originally included – but who followed up on the post very well (Dixon mentioned above). I would explain at this point, that Photoshop and me do not get on very well together and thus the lack of arrows on this is due to that – however I would draw your attention to the 6th January and the following are apparent

• Significant spike in followers round the date of the post and subsequent days
• Spike followed by plateaux. This was the case in nearly all profiles – PatrickAltofts excluded – which just seems to have a constant spike on it.
• Strangely – despite being heavily involved in the initial ‘promotion’ (Kevin Gibson @SEOptimise sphunn the post – and was one of the first to read), followers to @KevGibbo seems to take longer than those of other ‘participants’
• Higher follower increases seem to have been experienced to those at the top of the post, reducing for those at the bottom (similar profile I would suggest to SERP behaviour). This was one of the points highlighted in Dixons earlier post.

Increases in followers - @JonMyers and @receptional

Patrick Altoft (@patrickaltoft), Kevin Gibson (@KevGibbo) and Andrew Girdwood (@AndrewGirdwood) follower profile

Dave Naylor (@davenaylor), Ciaran Norris (@ciaranj) and Lisa Ditlefsen (@lisaditlefsen)

It should be noted there was one user, possibly most people wouldn’t have heard of – and it was interesting to see the effect of followers for him. Dan Alderson (@pinje) was added to see what sort of effect such a post would have (I will be honest – I in no way expected the response it got) – however it was interesting to see the knock on effects of the post on his follower profile below.

@pinje visitor profile

It would be interesting therefore to further explore this moving forward, certainly in terms of how this affects the increasing numbers of brands entering the Twitter arena, with the likes of Thomas Cook, Dell to name a few who are already in the Twitter domain.

I have to agree with aspects of what Stuart says – but I wholly disagree on a number of other points. This is a debate I have had on a number of occasions, particularly when working as part of a large regional agency of which the PR part of the organisation played a prominent part. Stuart is indeed right to a certain extent when he suggest that PR understand the facets of reputation management better than most (not all) search practitioners do – and SEO is by no means the answer to all online reputational management needs (and neither will it ever be).

However, it is a tool of the trade (as Stuart) puts it, and in the modern day communications environment environment, a very important tool of the trade. I think it is important to stress there as well modern day. The communications environment over the last couple of years has changed significantly. In the ten or so years I have been in online, I have seen online take a larger and larger chunk of the pie, not just because products are packaged better, however I would suggest this is reflective of user behaviour, as broadband in particular has revolutionised how people buy, talk and interact.

Reputation is no longer purely confined to offline. Certainly some of the biggest PR issues have started online – and it is the ‘viral’ speed of online that means Search (not just SEO), Social Media and PR should be working together now more than ever. Reputation is not a PR function, it’s not an SEO function it’s a corporate function, and as such the organisations that should be best placed to exploit this are the organisations that can bring all facets to the table – both online and offline.

I would like to come back to the point – search above. SEO is just one facet of that jigsaw. SEO is no longer just about ‘write a compelling news release’ and ‘make it SEO friendly’ and to a certain extent it never was just that. It’s a facet, but as a search practitioner I wouldn’t be doing a job, if I didn’t look at the bigger picture. With so many more tools to bring to the table such as PR and Video, it’s more a case of combining skillsets and specialisations like never before, and there is obviously the implications of brand association of search (and obviously the implications of negative results with Search (and social media channels – such as YouTube). Modern day users to an extent trust search results and as a result search has to play an important part of the reputational management mix ( I draw your attention at this point to the Enquiro Research piece on brand association)

So ultimately who is better placed? I would suggest neither. In Stuart’s piece, he states

However, one danger of SEO agencies getting involved is that they just focus online and therefore miss the bigger reputation management issue, potentially causing significant damage to a brand.

I hate to say it but I personally feel that comment is wholly unfair, and the reverse can often be the case in terms of traditional PR agencies. PR’s (for whatever reason) often do not understand the implications of digital, and as such are just as likely to cause ’significant damage to the brand’ (just look at the Edelman/Wal-Mart issue from a couple of years back).

Not until both parties come to the table – and work together do I think clients will see the full value of a holistic reputation management service. In the modern day environment, neither can and neither should do without the other….

• Small Experiment at present
• Troggered only on a small number of SearchWiki users
• Users that remove a result will no longer trigger that specific ad for that user
• Ads do not affect quality score, CPCs or ranking, but may in the future
• Advertisers will not be able to see reports on ad removal at present
• Advertisers are charged for clicks as usual

Below is the response:

What is this experiment?

This is a small experiment to show the SearchWiki “X” next to AdWords ads on Google.com search results pages.

Is there a formal name for this feature?

No.

How big is the experiment?

The experiment triggers for a small number of SearchWiki users. SearchWiki is launched to most (but not all) signed-in US English users.

What happens to ads that users remove?

Ads that users remove will no longer trigger for that user on that query.

Are we using this data to impact advertisers’ Quality Scores or CPCs?

Not at this time. The experiment does not affect Quality Scores, CPCs, ranking, or anything else.

Will we use the data for Quality Score or other purposes in the future?

It it too soon to say how we will use the data in the future.

Are advertisers charged for clicks during this experiment?

Yes, advertisers are charged for clicks as usual.

If an ad is removed, does it still count as an impression?

Yes, any time an ad is shown to a user, an impression is counted.

Can advertisers opt out of this experiment?

No.

Can advertisers see reports on ad removal?

Not in this experiment.

Will we be launching this feature to all users? Will we be expanding it to the content network?

It is too soon to say what the next steps are. We are currently gathering and analyzing the data from this small experiment.

This doesnt appear to have propogated into the mainstream (yet – certainly in the UK I am not seeing this) – and would appear to be limited in terms of testing, however both Rehan and Rustybrick raise an interesting question in terms of how such functionality would impact on Quality Score – which I would suggest would be one of the motivational factors from Google behind deploying this in the paid search ads. However whilst this would in all likelihood only reduce potential coverage only slightly (given the amount of manipulation browsers actually apply to their search results), it has a potential to impact on advertiser impact and as such I would suggest that this would probably have a more vocal response if rolled out fully.

I would be therefore very interested to see how well such functionality would go down with the agencies, given the luke warm response to the original SearchWiki rollout.

Related Reading

Search Engine Roundtable – Google testing SearchWiki on Adwords

Rehan Post from WebMasterWorld

Update:Hat-tip to my colleague, Tom Cull at MediaVest on this one, however it appears this is now happening on UK searches as well

The furore centered around a ‘pay-per-post campaign’ with Cyberbuzz – A Tokyo based internet marketing company with many participants in the post referencing the Cyberpuzz campaigns. However again this is where Google failed to follow their own guidelines as not one of the links appears to contain the nofollow attribute highlighted by Google as best practise in these instances. A case of pot, calling the kettle black you may think…

Matt Cutts twitter post on Google.co.jp "penalty"

However it appears Google have penalised the Google.jp with a -4PR penalty, as announced by Matt Cutts (first highlighed by Hobo-Web and Patrick Altoft). Call me a cynic, but one can’t help thinking that this is somewhat suspect, and nothing more than a PR masterstroke on Googles perspective. After all, in real terms it is unlikely to have any significant knock on impact. Most people at the end of the day, do not Google Google, however it will have a number of knock-on effects:

• Significant Buzz – THere is already a lot of Google penalising themselves, and other posts similar to this one.
• Linkage – The amount of linkage generated on this subject is likely to be significant. Not really that much of an issue for Google, however as many SEO related sites tend to have high PR, something to consider all the same

Given the speed of response, there is little doubt Google have been carefully monitoring this. Certainly a quick look at Matt Cutts conversation history in Twitter (particularly those from February 9th ), show that the WebSpam team at Google would have been aware of the issue and the level of ‘interest’ it was provoking within the industry. I would thus suggest the powers that be at Google would have therefore been aware of the impending PR issues and this is merely a direct response to that rather than the traditional penalty system.

Google.co.jp "penalty" references on Twitter

Whether or not this is the type of noise the Japanese market want to hear is a different story – and to a certain extent whether this has even filtered through to the general public over there. Only time will tell on those.

However in my opinion is a brand reputation masterstroke.

It is however interesting to see Google testing yet more pages. One of these has been something I have seen on a number of references to blogsearch results, however as yet I had not seen this integrated into the mainstream SERPs – until now

A number of interesting points can immediately be seen, most notably the ability to filter searches by:

• Anytime
• Last 24 hours
• Last Week
• Last Month
• Last Year

This is then followed by a breakdown of results, as well as an extra part to the title with the date found beside it. Given the context it was found in, it was something extremely useful in terms of finding the most recent and relevant document relating to the research I was doing, and it has to be said one of the better improvements I have seen being tested over the last couple of years (certainly infinitely better than the SearchWiki functionality)

I understand from Jon Myers, Head of Search at MediaVest that Google tested something similar in the US back in September, however it isn’t something I have seen here in the UK before. This also differs from previous slightly in display from previous observations back in September, and is controlled via the parameters ‘&as_qdr=y’ on the URL string.

Further to this, there also appears to be further enhancements off the extended snippets we have previously covered on the Holistic Search blog. In the previous post, most of the results saw extended snippets, however on the testing highlighted below we are seeing segmented testing with only the first result seeing an extended snippet. As with sitelinks this can only serve to extend the amount of real estate that the top two positions take up – and further enhance paid search as the prominent channel within the initial results presented to potential searchers.

I would suggest given the amount of innovation we are seeing at the moment this won’t be the last testing we will see, and it will be interesting to see how other aspects of the search experience impact on the SERPs, certainly I personally think blended search still has some significant mileage in it.

@Delloutlet on Twitter

As expected the announcement was made via Twitter as well as on via this Direct2Dell blog post:

Beginning today, Dell will offer deals from the Dell Outlet exclusive to Twitter in the U.S. With over 11,000 followers, our team wanted to show their thanks to the Twitter world through these new deals which will continue each week.

Its interesting to see the continuing evolvement of Twitter, it will be interesting to see how the continuing engagement with Twitter affects how other channels particularly email.  I single out email particularly because of the similarities – however the ‘invitation’ nature of twitter may mean take up of Twitter sales messages may be higher as a result, however at present I have seen very little evidence to support that.

However there are increasing numbers of intuitive and inventive tools and ‘plugins’ to Twitter, something which I feel is going to continue to see the potential monetization of Twitter move forward apace, particularly as I would suggest Twitter has four main benefits over other comparison channels:

• Users are warm prior to engagement. Primary readers are generally followers and thus highly receptive to any sales messages you may be distributing
• However responses may be read by secondary ‘followers’, and also be tertiary distribution points such as blog plugins and the like.
• Twitter is accountable (Yes I did say accountable). URL shorterners such as TinyURL allow you to pass tracking parameters which could be integrated back into your analytics.
• Twitter is permanent – well to a degree. Once posted the post cannot be deleted from the timeline by your recepients – unless they remove you – thus tone of voice and quantity are important (a bit like email)

Given the continuing uptake of Twitter by the mainstream public, perhaps the Dell example may be the first of many…

This leads me onto the second point. The company above got flamed not for the above, but for the fact they didn’t appear in the first page (or even the next four) for the term ’search engine optimisation’. I would add at this point – perhaps controversially that anyone that does choose a company for the reason they are top of SEO or search engine optimisation is taking a chance – use it as a research tool to find potential search partners however don’t base a business decision of it.

I will use the top five of the current Google results for ’search engine optimization’ as an example. This isn’t an outing session, so I certainly won’t be mentioning any names, however there are two organisations tactics in their whose tactics are a likely to come awry at some point due to the questionable nature of particularly their link acquisition. I would also add there are a number of good search (and SEO) agencies that do not come in the first couple of pages of results for terms such as SEO but have delivered a number of quality projects and campaigns.

However if you are looking what should you do , I would suggest a REACH type approach is probably worth taking.

R – Research. Probably the most important thing you can do. If you don’t have a miniscule understanding of what SEO is or what is involved, you are more expose. Further to that research the market, place like SEOVendor (from Andy Beal) and SEOMoz both have areas which which you can look at potential search partners, and publications such as NMA in the UK have both the editorial and the marketplace section which will give you an idea of players in the market.

E – Evaluate. Do a bit of homework on them (don’t just look at whether their first page for SEO, Search Engine Optimisation etc). Ask them for examples of their previous work, and results achieved for their clients. I would suggest the old saying ‘cobblers shoes’ applies to a lot of agencies, hence why I would always suggest you looking at client results rather than previous results. This to me means too much time on your hands ….

A – Ask questions. Don’t ever go into a SEO contract blind. My favourite clients are the ones that ask questions right from the beginning. I personally often find an educated client is more likely to buy into new ideas or changes far easier, as they understand the rationale and timescales. The types of questions you should be asking should be along the lines of

• What sort of results can I expect and can you give me potential timescales. Here I would be looking for two answers. One – any mention of guaranteed results and I would generally run a mile. Two, Significant results in Google in a very short time period (ie We will get you top in four weeks), I would always be wary of.
• What happens if I can’t implement something you recommend. Are you going to carry on sending it through, or not doing anything. Any decent agency should work with you, and any limitations you may have – or at the very least explain the implications
• Ask for references and testimonials. Who better to ask than people they have previously worked with – oh and actually follow these up
• How do you develop links. Do they undertake any paid linkage for seo purposes only (if you are Ok with taken a chance with paid links that is your own prerogative – however it is worth understanding the role and thus the risk)
• Expect them to ask questions. SEO is a two way thing. It shouldn’t be a case of just going away and giving you a list of high trafficked keywords. At the end of the day, you (as the client) understand your product far better than we do, however we know how we can get that product found, so it needs both parties to work in harmony. Make sure you know answers to questions such as Average Order Value, Target Cost Per Lead/Acquisition etc. This will ultimately help you get a solutions that is targeted towards your requirements.
• Ask about KPI’s. A campaign without KPI’s is just flying blind – they should have an objective whether this is ROI or traffic led.
• Tracking. What tools does your agency have in place to measure the effectiveness. Have they got any ways of deduping data so you get a clearer channel breakdown. Is their any form of search path analysis in place?

C – Contracts. Make sure you understand your contract. Many agencies don’t work to defined long term contracts, others do. Thats not to say there is anything with being tied into a longer term contract, but just make sure you have some caveats (built into the contract), should contracted hours not be done, or agreed KPI’s not be hit. It is possibly worth understanding as well as to what happens when you leave, going back to the examples above, should you leave I would suggest the vast majority of your linkage is likely to disappear as well.

H – Have an understanding of whats happening. Don’t let the evaluation process end, when you sign the contract. Make sure you understand what your agency is doing for you via regular reports and reviews (monthly should do). Take an interest in the SEO campaign – theres nothing worse from an agency perspective than merely just being thrown something with little or no client support. Te best campaigns have total client buy-in = and with search becoming more and more intertwined with more traditional marketing (lets use PR which can be used for SEO purposes) buy in and involvement is more important than ever.Flip side to this, make sure your agency is pro-active, and suggesting things which are suitable for you.

Like any sector, there are good search agencies and their are bad search agencies. However if you do your homework, and take an interest in your SEO you will be very surprised at how effective it can be.