"Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do."
~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
I’d like to end the debate on which form of search is best, paid or unpaid, with some common sense: Nothing in life is free and all search is paid. One pays a search engine optimization firm, specialist staffer, or analytics provider. One might also pay for URLs to be fed to a search site, or pay to bid for listing positions in direct proximity to one’s competitor’s listings. All search is paid, and all search traffic can be boiled down to a click cost.
After attending (and participating in) the recent Ad:Tech New York panels on search, it is abundantly clear to me the paid and natural search worlds are still not communicating in harmony. I overheard at least one senior online marketing executive saying, “Search is promising the world right now and that will be its undoing.” Last week’s IAB/Pricewaterhouse Coopers 2003 to-date advertising revenue report confirmed the explosive growth of search citing a 22% increase in format spending since last year. Search advertisers are becoming pill-popping junkies hooked on the immediate gratification fix.
Consider this an intervention. At times like this, I defer to great thinkers like Plato, Goethe, and Yoda who all hoped that logic and reason would one day prevail amid much madness. Of course, this logic and reason are one in the same with the pragmatic thought process that keeps me from retreating to a small European town to subsist on Absinthe while praying to the green fairy. Let’s take rational look at SEM formats in an attempt to end this divided universe and move on to something a bit more productive.
Dynamics of Sanity
My panel at Ad:Tech focused on the basics of what we now call paid search. In order to understand the delineation, I offered the following classifications of search marketing. Though marketers primarily view search as either paid or unpaid, search can be placed into three distinct categories with bid-for-placement listings and organic optimization on each end of the spectrum and paid inclusion blurring the lines in the middle.
Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
- Also called, natural, editorial, or organic search
- Effected by site architecture, interpreted relevance
- “Pray for Positioning”
Pros: static fee structure, perceived as an unbiased information source by users
Cons: no guarantee of positioning, long delay to impact, messaging is static
Each time I refer to SEO as “Pray for Positioning” I get a laugh. Search Engine Optimization got a bad name with many advertisers due to its lack of measurement and long time frame to see any impact of optimizing efforts. Additionally, many specialized firms purported to have technology that could fool search engines which often led to “penalty box” third page listing positions for advertisers. Of course, measurement has improved over the years and with click costs skyrocketing in a crowded pay-for-placement arena, site optimization is looking better all the time. Still, only one thing is certain with SEO, there are no certainties in SEO.
- LookSmart, Inktomi
- Effected by interpreted relevance, refresh factor
- “Pay to be there”
Pros: no keyword bidding, appears near “editorial listings”
Cons: no guarantee of positioning, URL-based fee structure adds up quickly for big sites
The paid inclusion model has baffled many advertisers. It is not pay for placement, and is not of the same ilk as SEO. Think of paid inclusion as listings in the middle. Whether paying for inclusion in directories on a URL basis or cost-per-click structure, this model offers the “best balance of a listing appearing natural” according to eMarketer’s July 2003 online advertising tactics report.
No good deed (or search marketing opportunity) goes unpunished and the natural appearance may be its downfall. Big providers have begun to move in the direction of changing these listings to “sponsored” after attacks from consumer organizations suggested these listings should be clearly labeled as advertisements like pay-for-placement listings.
– Pay For Placement
- Google Ad WordsTM, Overture, FindWhat, Kanoodle, Looksmart
- URL listing bid environment
- “Yellow Pages of the Web”
Pros: real time results, guaranteed positioning
Cons: keyword cost volatility, possible negative connotation
Ah, the ad model that saved Internet advertising. PFP listings are popping up everywhere and this is arguably the first model to really help search engines stay profitable. The most popular form of PFP includes listings that are “syndicated” from one search site to many others. This marketplace has become very crowded of late, which is forcing marketers to focus on beyond-the-click metrics to quantify pay-for-placement spending. The new mantra for PFP is get smart or go broke.
Where Do People Click?
Search Engine Optimization firms tout the benefits of organic optimization because, well, that’s what they do. Agencies have adopted and included paid programs into media plans because the self-service platforms allow them to easily do so. The question of which is more valuable to an advertiser, the sponsored link or the editorial search result, is the single biggest point of controversy in the industry
It is a generally accepted notion that the higher your listing ranks for a keyword search, the better off you are. According to eMarketer compiled data, Overture conducted a survey in July 2002 in which an estimated 54% of users had clicked on a paid search listing and the remaining portion had not. The same survey asked users if they thought the quality of clicked-on paid listings were better than other types of search listings. Nearly 96% of respondents thought the quality of these listings was the same or better.
On the other hand, an April 2003 PlanetFeedback study concluded that 29% of users were annoyed by paid listings. Ok, pop-up ads continue to annoy the hair off my head, but there are plenty of those around. Incidentally, the same study showed that 83% of consumers found pop-ups annoying. Only 83%? I suppose the remaining 17% who think pop-ups are just swell are the same people spending their life savings on magazine subscriptions in the hopes that this will somehow increase the likelihood of Ed McMahon one day showing up on their doorstep.
Even though consumers might think paid ads are annoying, research and revenue proves that they will click on links that are relevant. How annoying is it to enter a search term, receive 270,000 possible results, and choose none of them? Only 21% of searchers consider their search activity truly a success according to a March 2002, Mondosoft research study. The verdict? We have a long way to go in achieving search efficiency before we can bicker about which click is better.
Pulling It All Together
Last time I checked, Websites were still built for people. If your research indicates that 99.7% of your audience wants a Website built entirely on a rich-media platform, then build it. If you have to prohibit bots from entering your site to keep confidential data secret, do it. These two examples do not produce the best environment for search engines, but then again, a search engine won’t swing by and make a purchase.
If the bid or click costs of your keywords far exceed any hope of generating a positive return, then for heaven’s sake organically optimize the heck out of your site in lieu of spending advertising dollars foolishly.
At the end of the day, understanding your audience and the delicate intricacies of each type of search marketing will determine which search marketing colors you will apply to your palette. Most often, a combination of pay-for-placement and organic search optimization will fit the bill. Can you survive without one or the other? At the risk of sounding like the only sane man in an insane world, sure you can.
Soap Box Opportunity Knocks
In the utopian search marketing society, the needs of your constituents are met simultaneously with the needs of a search engine. This is a world where happy agencies work together within their respective disciplines in unison for the ultimate benefit of the advertisers they represent. Part of the problem with search lies within the many firms an advertiser may need to execute such programs. Where does this search responsibility ultimately rest? Everyone seems to have an opinion on this, but I’d like to hear your thoughts, so drop me a line.
About the author: iMedia search columnist Kevin Ryan’s current and former client roster reads like a “who’s who” in big brands; Rolex Watch, USA, State Farm Insurance, Farmers Insurance, Minolta Corporation, Samsung Electronics America, Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Panasonic Services, and the Hilton Hotels brands, to name a few. He is currently Director Market Development of IPG’s Wahlstrom Interactive where he provides guidance in directional online marketing to Wahlstrom’s prestigious list of clients and sister agency brands.
YouTube was a vital medium for Obama's campaign and continues after inauguration. The weekly presidential address, traditionally on radio, is now a video released on YouTube and also on the White House website.
Not many corporations have used the internet to support a rebranding, but when the 2007 ArcelorMittal merger created the world's largest steel company, it was necessary to quickly create a dialogue with 330,000 employees in 60 countries to allay concerns and maintain focus on the business during the five months required to build and launch the new brand. The web played a key role, hosting ArcelorMittal.tv -- a series of 12 films featuring employees raising questions/concerns about the merger, the new company's mission, and business strategies going forward. Management addressed questions in a blog accompanying each video episode. The video series is available on YouTube for the public as well, and it has been downloaded at the rate of 15,000 per day.
Lighten things up
Obama's campaign was notable for its sense of humor, in many cases forcing his opponents onto the late night talk show circuit to their comparative disadvantage. Levity hasn't played much of a role in recent rebrandings, but two companies have staged launch events in a decentralized way that encouraged employee creativity and cemented their relationship to the new brand.
Financial and automotive giants Grant Thornton and Johnson Controls faced the need to foster greater collaboration between offices across the world and encourage consistent use of their respective corporate identities. Rather than a single, corporate-staged brand launch, these firms had each office create their own event, with management providing only identity guidelines and materials. From office to office there were cakes baked featuring the new company logo, people arrived at work dressed in the corporate colors, offices were painted in the corporate palette, and flag raisings and tent meetings were held. In both cases, the ceremonies were recorded on video and edited into a corporate film that was available to all employees on the company websites. No doubt the freedom of each office to incorporate levity, local customs, and cultures helped build relevance for the corporate brand.
Touch your target
Inclusive events and personal conversations were also hallmarks of the Obama campaign. Corporate communicators ignore the power of one-on-one communication at their peril when projecting a new brand and mission. Several of the companies in my study went to extraordinary lengths to connect to the broad employee base. There's no better example than CEC Bank -- the former Romanian state banking monopoly that rebranded in 2008 to compete with global banks for the first time. In order to introduce employees to the general concept of a brand, let alone CEC's own brand, there were engagement sessions averaging 15 hours with all 6,700 of the bank's employees, as well as their union officials.
After the Thomson Reuters rebranding was broadcast around the world by satellite, CEO Tom Glocer embarked on a 30-day world tour. The primary objective was to speak with employees about the goal of "One Company in one Year." Likewise, after aviation solutions provider Rockwell Collins introduced its new brand, Dave Yeoman, director of corporate communications, held informal brown bag lunches with employees in his travels to company facilities around the world.
Measure green, make green
Clearly the Obama campaign benefited from the support of environmentalists. Every organization is being judged by its sustainability. Outside of companies whose business is the environment, (BP, GE, etc.) this is an area that has been largely ignored in corporate rebranding events. A few bright spots: Smith & Nephew, in its rebranding, shipped flat, corrugated boxes printed with the new brand identity elements to all offices to be assembled and displayed on site -- a cost and energy saving tactic. Of course, Grant Thornton and Johnson Controls' locally staged events saved the energy that would have been required to send large groups of employees to central locations. The same with CSC, which used a "follow the sun" strategy to launch its brand, country by country, at noon in each time zone.
But by in large, environmental concerns have not been at the forefront when launching new corporate brands. No doubt this will change.
Do well by doing good
Obama raised unprecedented sums of money by convincing millions to "give a little money for the cause of change," making people feel they were part of a movement. With this as a backdrop, it has never been clearer that social responsibility will increasingly drive consumer loyalty. The launch of a new identity is an excellent opportunity to communicate the corporate mission and vision by incorporating strategic social responsibility. I haven't seen this done yet. Perhaps Smith & Nephew ("Helping people regain their lives by repairing and healing the human body.") could initiate a program to donate artificial joints to people in need, and involve employees as well. Or Johnson Controls could donate thermostats to Habitat for Humanity. No matter what the corporate mission, there is an opportunity to use charity as a strategic reinforcement of the brand position. This should be baked into every brand launch.
Define your value
Corporations, just like political candidates, increasingly need to define their value in simple, unambiguous terms. This is the No. 1 job for every corporate rebranding. Of the recent examples, Thomson Reuters illustrates this best. Its value proposition is the transformation of an increasing amount of raw information into "intelligent information" for professionals and businesses. As the company advertising tagline describes it: "Information to Act." The nexus of its brand launch was Times Square, arguably the most chaotic place on earth. The identity reveal, on six Jumbotron screens, created the new logo out of a random array of swirling shapes, metaphorically creating order out of chaos -- transforming information into "intelligent information."
Spend it if you've got it
The current economy, while producing fear in most marketers, provides ample opportunity to those with relevant, differentiated positions who are willing to take advantage of retreating competition. When a company rebrands, it's a mistake to downplay the launch event in an effort to conserve budget. The launch event is key to the success of a corporate rebranding. It serves as a platform for management to inspire and lead. It can signal the promise of a merger or acquisition. It can help capitalize on a strategic shift and set the tone to guide relationships between a corporation, its employees, and customers -- online and offline. But no matter how skillfully crafted the strategy and design of the new identity, without a well thought-out and executed launch, the message sent can be quite the opposite of what is intended.
Dick Bondy is a marketing and advertising professional who helps companies increase the ROI of their corporate brands.