SEO Blog - UK Search Engine Marketing News & Tips

An interesting article in the Times about online reputation management today made me ponder an aspect of search engines which I had never previously had cause to consider – how a person could rid the searchable web of all traces of themselves.

Freelancer Bernhard Warner explained that an acquaintance of his had requested he expunge her from his blog, asserting that she wanted to be unGoogleable (I should mention that while that is an excellent word, Mr Warner has not coined it. As an interesting aside, though, the Urban Dictionary defines unGoogleable as meaning “effectively anonymous” online – marketers take note!).

He explained that although the majority of people and organisations are keen to maximise their visibility and online presence, there are a number of firms and individuals which – for the sake of their reputation – want to obliterate all mentions of themselves online.

“Monitoring your personal reputation in this Web 2.0 age is a real chore,” Mr Warner explained, adding that for big corporations it can be even harder.

“The majority of us all will show up on Google (or worse, a wanton namesake will) at some point in our lives. If you don’t like the look of it, then fill your life with good online deeds and hope they float to the top of the rankings,” he glibly advised – much easier said than done for the average graduate!

I do find it interesting though that despite the recent focus on individuals’ online footprints, the long-term effect on a business is not so often discussed. People are constantly warned that the picture of them vomiting onto a sheep during a hilarious Duke of Edinburgh expedition may not be so funny three years on when they are trying to get a job as an accountant.

Yet, businesses are even more at risk online as there can be organisations deliberately smearing their reputation – from irate bloggers to the competition - or even protest groups, particularly among the larger businesses.

In the long term, just as search engine optimisation became a necessary marketing tool for firms, online reputation management is likely to develop into a standard requirement.

I expect that when they come to define our era alongside the Stone Age and the Iron Age, we will be the Internet Age or perhaps the Age of Communication.

The printing press may have made it possible for the world to read but the internet allows everybody to publish, which I consider to be an equally liberating change.

Of course, much of the web is filled with nonsensical ramblings, conspiracy theories and personal blogs which carefully note every single purchase a person made at the supermarket.

However, interesting websites and blogs can develop virally until they are competing alongside those websites which have spent money on focus groups and snazzy site design to create success in the busy online world.

As an avid user of the internet – this is great. As a marketing professional, I can see how it causes all sorts of issues. Businesses have no control over what is said about them and, because the web is essentially free, rabid anti-brand individuals or pressure groups can cause huge damage to a firm’s reputation.

These individual bloggers can compete on an almost even footing with major brands. While the concept of super-advocates is an interesting area of study, I think super-critics are more likely to impact directly on firms in the near future.

It is challenging, exciting and sometimes damaging but online criticism is not a risk that firms can blithely ignore.

As my fellow blogger Celia might say, the course of true love never did run smooth and Microsoft’s ego must be feeling a little battered by now to say the least. The software giant has now chosen to propose an alternative deal to Yahoo! which stops short of a full takeover.

Earlier on in the year, the Yahoo! board of directors rejected an offer by Microsoft, leading to widespread speculation that an aggressive takeover might be on the cards. However, instead of encouraging shareholders to oust the search engine’s bosses, the firm seemed to suddenly lose interest.

Now, however, Microsoft has once again opened itself up to Yahoo! rejection – what is it about this search engine that makes it so attractive to them? Could it be its obsession with outpacing Google as a search provider on a more global scale?

Yahoo! is giving nothing away. It issued a prim statement, noting: “Yahoo!’s board of directors will evaluate each of our alternatives, including any Microsoft proposal, consistent with its fiduciary duties, with a focus on maximising stockholder value.”

So Microsoft should not expect any favours.

However, I think that if Microsoft increases its influence over Yahoo!, it will not be too long before it buys it outright. I think this would be a shame, though, as having a variety of search engines is good for the consumer, good for innovation and drives up standards within the search engine optimisation sector.

I read an article on E-consultancy earlier which got me thinking about the SEO industry. The blogger was discussing the importance of controlling expectations as a start-up business and not succumbing to the temptation of over-hyping what the firm can supply – as this can be detrimental to its reputation if it then fails to deliver.

This made me think about the complete disservice black-hat SEO has done to my industry. Optimising a website can have an incredible effect on traffic and therefore sales. Also, perhaps more importantly, failing to keep up with competitors’ rankings is like choosing to set up shop in a back street when they have a window on Oxford Road.

However, working in SEO, I often find I have to manage clients’ expectations after they have been exposed to over-hype elsewhere. Black hat or just inadequate consultants may have promised impossible targets - which then make the incredible results hard work can deliver seem disappointing.

It is bad enough having to work on a website which has been mangled with unethical tricks and penalised by the search engines until it ranks at the top of page eight. It is worse also working with a client who has been exposed to such excessive hype that you have to explain that no one really has a deal with Yahoo!, an agreement with Google or an understanding with Microsoft.

Eventually, when SEO is more widely understood and used, this will no longer happen. Until then, the damage black-hatters do to our reputation and to their clients’ sites is likely to continue.

An article from the US caught my eye this week as it suggested that Google is struggling - not something the world normally hears about the rapidly rising search behemoth.

Adam Lashinsky, writing for CNN, comments that the company still has only one way of making money - search. Although this is a “gusher” in his words (is everything in the US about oil?), it is just one source of income - the multitude of other projects it operates are not money makers.

Furthermore, the commentator asserts that Google is haemorrhaging the bright young talent which it needs to succeed. Staff have a time allowance which lets them work on their own ideas (for which I am grateful. How else could we have been offered the Elmer Fudd Google page?).

However, while this encourages innovation, Lashinsky suggests employees do not want someone else to own their ideas and leave to try and replicate Google’s success themselves.

My thoughts on this are that people have been speculating about the collapse of Google for a while and so far, it seems to be doing okay. Even if the firm’s other projects are minor compared to its main operation, that “gusher” is hardly going to slow - the ability to find relevant information fast is just too vital.

Europeans made 24.6 billion searches in March alone, a new report has revealed.

Research published by comScore has shown that in that one month, 221.2 million people in Europe made an average of 111 searches each.

Here in the UK, 32.4 million unique people made an average 124 searches each, with only Germany’s 36 million individual users beating our figure.

Interestingly enough, the information showed that - while Google was by far and away the most used search portal if them all - in Eastern European countries a number of local engines are being more commonly used.

However, despite the increased popularity of websites like Russia’s Yandex, Google was still the engine of choice for eight in ten queries, the report showed.

While it is interesting to watch the battle of the search engines, there is one consistent fact illustrated by reports like this. Search engines are a vital way for consumers to navigate the web and their importance is unlikely to diminish any time soon.

It sometimes surprises me how little people consider how search engines choose which websites should rank highly.

Britain is a well-informed country – people select a newspaper which suits their opinions and watch different news programmes depending on whether they want to hear about Madonna or Mandela – yet very few seem to consider the power search portals hold over the information they receive.

I think that as an SEO professional, I sometimes forget that not everyone understands or has even considered the control the big search providers could exert over the internet if they chose to.

Now and again, a newspaper will illustrate that the majority of people do not understand the way search engines work by publishing a lengthy explanation of website optimisation, like this recent one in the Sunday Times (which described SEO as “part crystal-ball watching, part trial and error”).

It is unlikely that any search engine would ever threaten its commercial position - in the UK at least - by exercising an unhealthy level of editorial control or imposing a political slant on the information its users could easily access.

However, the general lack of awareness about the search portals we use everyday makes me glad there are so many companies and SEO professionals whose job it is to watch and analyse changes to the algorithms they use. There are thousands of sector workers who rapidly discover and discuss changes in the generation of search results through their blogs and various marketing forums. It can only be healthy.

It happens all the time - an employee spends considerable time researching the benefits of search engine optimisation (SEO) and other online marketing endeavours only to discover their boss fails to share or even understand their enthusiasm.

There are so many businesses out there which are not exploiting the potential of the web - sometimes because the boss’s son built a homepage for his IT GCSE and that is considered sufficient.

Often an employee can have just a few minute of their busy employer’s time to persuade them that they need to invest in online marketing and, as there is often a lack of understanding, there can be a lack of interest.

Fortunately for you frazzled folk, here for your convenience is a list of reasons and research to persuade even the most miserly boss to cough up cash for online marketing.

Reason Number One: The consumers are online

According to the Office for National Statistics, in 2007 15.23 million British homes had web access, which is more than six in ten. Furthermore, above 50 per cent of those used broadband to access the internet at speed. It just makes sense to promote a business through a platform consumers regularly see and - since the vast majority of firms cannot afford the television - the internet is a cost-effective and targeted alternative.

Reason Number Two: Your competitors are online

Employees should explain to their bosses that everyone else is doing it! The world is using the web to shop, bank and socialise and a company is potentially losing a large amount of potential business to their competitors if they are not online. Recent research published by the Internet Advertising Bureau revealed that last year £2.8 billion was spent advertising online. That is a hell of an advantage everyone else has over an offline firm.

Reason Number Three: Consumers are spending online

A boss might now point out that the take-up in broadband does not necessarily mean that people are actually shopping online - they could just be emailing and accessing Freecycle. Now is a good time to show them statistics published by the Interactive Media in Retail Group which revealed that during February - despite the doom, gloom and predictions that negative equity was going to kill us all - online spending reached a record high. An astonishing £4.2 billion was spent through the web - equivalent to £69 for every UK resident.

Reason Number Four: Search engines drive the traffic

Information published by watchdog Ofcom has shown that the “vast majority” of online experiences begin with the user accessing a search engine. Furthermore, Hitwise recently published research which revealed that more than one third of British web traffic is directed through just one search engine - Google. Businesses cannot afford to miss out on such vast levels of traffic - they should fail or succeed depending on the strength of their product, not because no one knows who they are.

Reason Number Five: Move now or miss mobile search

Search marketing is not the next big thing - it is not something new and a little quirky. It is a staple part of many marketers’ day to day activities. The next big thing is ensuring a website is optimised for mobile search as, according to Juniper Research, more than 30 per cent of mobile users will be accessing local search by 2013. By failing to optimise a website, a company is seriously hamstringing itself for future marketing endeavours. No one wants to be playing catch-up.

I know that Kevin has touched on the marketing implications of the change in Google’s trademark protection laws but I just wanted to flag up some interesting figures I came across today.

From May 5th, Google is to allow all companies and marketers to bid in order to place their paid search advertising alongside search results for any term. Specifically, firm X can now place its adverts alongside the organic results for its main competitor Y.

Importantly, research and analysis firm Hitwise has published a report which shows that currently in the UK, 91.8 per cent of people who search for a particular brand end up on the website of the appropriate company.

However, in the US - where Google has never exercised such trademark control - that figure is just 84.2 per cent. That is a potentially massive drop in traffic for brands and, even worse than failing to gain visitors in the first place, means businesses regularly shed clients to their competitors.

The report from Hitwise concluded that brand owners are going to market themselves more aggressively in response to the move.

Interestingly enough, though, Tesco has now waded into the fray. Word on the web is that the supermarket giant has stated it will not bid on competitors’ trademarks and hopes that others will follow suit in order to keep the price down.

Google is staffed with clever people, it must have questioned whether British industry could behave in such a friendly way in order to mutually benefit. Furthermore, it must have concluded that businesses could not, or that only a few sectors would do so. It will be extremely interesting to see how this develops – particularly within the search marketing sector!

Yahoo! has launched a preview of its new SearchMonkey tool and is requesting developers go and have a play.

The ideas behind SearchMonkey were first shared with the online community back in February, but now website owners and developers are being encouraged to sign up for the SearchMonkey, check out the demo and even attend the launch party. Yahoo! is doing the thing in style.

I like SearchMonkey. It will give websites the chance to build enhanced search results, meaning they can annotate the information supplied alongside their Yahoo! search listing. The search engine hopes this will enhance the usefulness of such results to the user.

Furthermore, Yahoo! believes that by allowing websites to annotate their results, developers will be able to drive increased amounts of quality traffic to their sites.

Moves to enhance the usefulness of search results are always welcome. Not every consumer will understand or appreciate the level to which the portals refine their results but all web users will notice when their engine of choice offers them more useful and relevant information.

Has anyone signed up for a go yet?