It appears Google is yet again playing around with the results pages, particularly in local markets such as the UK and the Netherlands. In posts by both SEOHome and SearchCowboys, the option to browse results from a particular country appears to have been removed as the following snapshots

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

SMX London is approaching … FAST. Despite the fact it only November since the last SMX London, one of the biggest conferences in the UK Search Marketing agenda is taking place between the 18th and 19th of May 2009.

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

It appears that the enhancements to the Google search results continue unabbaited. Do a search for a broad keyword such as pizza on Google and your increasingly likely to see a local result as part of the results page

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

Firstly, I should highlight much of the rationale for this post comes from an earlier post from Bigmouthmedia’s Andrew Girdwood who highlighted the use of search in the current MVA (Thats Monsters vs Aliens) trailers currently doing the rounds on the television here in the UK.

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.

As part of the ongoing Guest Bloggers series, Rishi Lakhani, a Search Marketing Strategist strategist in the UK tackles one of the hot topics of the moment – that of brands and search engines

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.

I was recently involved in a conversation regarding the best fit for brand reputation as many legacy PR agencies were arguing that this function should be purely a PR activity rather than a combined, holistic approach to brand reputation. I hadn’t really thought more of that conversation until recently, whilst evaluating potential companies from which to buy a new kitchen from.

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?

This is perhaps one of the more left-field posts I am likely to write this year, however with much of the debate at present focussed on Matt Cutts comments on the recent Forrester comments on sponsored conversations it seemed somewhat apt. The paid links debate and the solution developed by Google in particular has long been debated within the industry, by both black hat and white hat SEO’s alike – however I would suggest that most search marketers would agree the current remediation (of the single nofollow) is not fit for purpose in the modern day environment.

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]

From a client perspective, its a minefield out there, with numerous agencies touting search engine optimisation (SEO) credentials, and in the UK, as with many other countries the level and scope of these services varies significantly – from specialist boutique search marketing agencies to digital specialists to full service agencies.

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…

There is an interesting debate in the offing, started on Twitter – and one Stuart Bruce, the founder and managing director at Wolfstar has covered on his stuartbruce.biz blog in a post ‘Public relations is about reputation, not SEO‘. In his post, Stuart suggests that ‘Public relations is first and foremost about reputation and behaviour’, and that PR is better placed as ‘guardians of the brand’ (not Stuarts quote) to manage the reputational needs of a client, rather than SEO.

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….

For many of those in the industry the story of late has been that of Googles recent ‘pay-per-post’ campaign out in Japan, to promote Google in the Japanese marketplace. Unlike in much of the Western World, Google is not numero uno in Japan, instead that recognition goes to arch enemy Yahoo. However in their enthusiasm, Google appear to have tripped a rather important filter – which co-incidentally just happened to be one of their more contentious guidelines off recent years – that of paid links.

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.