Effective Link Building Service: July 2009

Friday, July 31, 2009

Bookshelf: Want Solid SEM Benchmarks? This Report Has Them By The Boatload

**Want Solid SEM Benchmarks? This Report Has Them By The Boatload**

**by Chris Sherman**

Each year, Marketing Sherpa compiles an exhaustive look at the state
of search marketing. Each year, these reports grow more comprehensive,
reflecting the continuous change and evolution of our industry as it
grows up. This year's report is no exception.

The Marketing Sherpa 2009-10 Search Marketing Benchmark Report is 213
pages, and is divided into five major sections, including:

The business of search. There's been a lot of talk about how search
marketing budgets have been affected by the tumultuous economy, and
this section of the report offers some interesting data on what's
really going on out there. Contrary to other areas of advertising and
marketing that have seen budgets slashed, search marketing continues
to grow, albeit at a slower pace. This section has great stats about
how budgets have changed, how resources are being allocated, and for
the first time, salary stats for various job categories in the
industry compared with other traditional marketing positions.

Search benchmark data. This section offers invaluable competitive
intelligence data, collected by surveying search marketers, agencies
and advertisers. The stats here cover a wide range of cost-per-click
data, clickthrough rates, an abundance of info on the types,
quantities and prices of keywords used by both B2B and B2C marketers,
volume and conversion rates, and a new section on searcher behavior.

Measurement and testing. Over the past few years, analytics has grown
from something a few geeky search marketers played around with to a
core pillar of most search marketing campaigns. This section looks at
both the key metrics used by most marketers, as well as the most
underused metrics that could, but largely aren't, being exploited.
Testing, ROI tracking and attribution modeling also get good coverage.

Tactical issues in search. This section offers a potpourri of data
culled from search marketers, offering insights into everything from
targeting tactics, key SEO factors, clickfraud rates and insights into
dozens of other issues that search marketers grapple with on a daily
basis.

Search engine usage. This section offers good stats covering market
share, searcher preference and other data covering the top general and
vertical search players. There's also good info on secondary players
as well as the international search engines, with an emphasis on the
rapidly maturing Asian market.

Throughout, the emphasis is on data collected both by Marketing
Sherpa and about a dozen or so partners who analyze the search
marketing industry. For each topic, there's both a chart or graph and
written interpretation of the data. Most of the time this
interpretation is helpful, but I found myself wishing for more
detailed analysis for some topics. A few times, an analysis seemed
superficial, as if the writers were rushing through a topic or didn't
understand it well enough to offer meaningful insight.

Most of the information in the report is useful and compelling,
though occasionally the data gets too granular and seems more like
fluff thrown in apparently to fill out the page count (e.g. detailed
distributions of salary ranges for all job titles). Another drawback
is that the graphics are occasionally difficult to interpret, with
busy or confusing charts. I found myself wishing that Marketing
Sherpa's graphic designer would follow the guidelines laid out in
Edward Tufte's classic The Visual Display of Quantitative Information
<http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_vdqi>
.

However, given the sheer scope and quality of the information
presented in the report, these are comparatively minor quibbles.

While the insights in the report are valuable for anyone seeking a
competitive edge in search marketing, the Marketing Sherpa 2009-10
Search Marketing Benchmark Report is probably most useful for anyone
needing objective data to make a case for budgets or tactics in an SEM
campaign. Many of the difficult questions asked by clients or internal
executives have answers in the pages of the report, and even better,
are backed by solid data.

Marketing Sherpa 2009-10 Search Marketing Benchmark Report
<http://www.sherpastore.com/SearchMarketingReport2010.html>

Sixth edition ISBN: 978-1-932353-96-9

Marketing Sherpa LLC, $447 (PDF Only: $397)

Chris Sherman <http://searchengineland.com/author/chris-sherman/>
is Executive Editor of SearchEngineLand.com and President of
Searchwise LLC, a Boulder Colorado based Web consulting firm. He also
programs and co-chairs the Search Marketing Expo - SMX conference
series <http://searchmarketingexpo.com/>
.

<div><a href="http://www.superbhosting.net/"><img
src="http://www.searchmarketingnow.com/_images/superb.gif"
border="0"></a></div>
You are receiving this email because you subscribed to a Search Engine
Land, Search Marketing Now or Search Marketing Expo newsletter. To update
your subscriptions or unsubscribe, use your newsletter preferences page at
http://third.thirddoormedia.com/lists/?p=preferences&id=2&uid=f9779113b77d03598707df46ae032f9b.
Or send your written request to: 279 Newtown Tpke., Redding, CT
06896</font>

--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --

Just Behave: Bing + Yahoo: What Does It Mean For Users?

**Bing + Yahoo: What Does It Mean For Users?**

**by Gord Hotchkiss**

The deal is done. Microsoft has swallowed Yahoo search whole and we
can all be put out of our long, lingering misery. Yahoo has given up
on search and thrown in the towel. But, outside this industry and our
incestuous little gossip circle, what does it really mean for average
folks? Does it make a difference… really? When all is said and done,
will the news amount to a hill of beans?

Well, in the long run, it's probably a good thing for most of the
players involved, including users. My original concern when rumors of
Microhoo started to fly was the distraction that the integration of
two very different and somewhat challenging cultures would become. I
was afraid that the search user experience would get lost in the
process. But the revenue share split does away with that concern,
which is good for users. Yahoo can continue to be Yahoo, minus the
"distraction" of search. Microsoft can get serious about search
with a more viable economic engine to justify their investment.
Basically, the deal gives Microsoft a whole lot more eyeballs for
Bing, and that's going to be beneficial for everyone.

But there are some other reasons why the search user could benefit
from this deal:

A release of talent

There's a whole bunch of PO'd, disenfranchised search engineers that
have just had a frightening but potentially liberating view of the
future: freed from the shackles of the rapidly sinking S.S. Yahoo,
they might actually have a chance to do something meaningful in
search.

I've had the opportunity to talk to various members of the Yahoo!
search team over the last several years, under Semel, Yang and Bartz.
The underlying current was always one of thinly veiled frustration.
They deserved better. They were smart and, once upon a time,
passionate about search. But for the past several years they were left
hanging out there, blowing in the breeze. They yearned to do something
meaningful. Now, with the ladder kicked out from underneath them, they
have no alternative. Whoever hasn't already jumped ship will be forced
to find new, and hopefully, more rewarding homes.

Pushing the wolves back from the door

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, or, less
anachronistically, a skipping MP3 file, search needs a major shot of
innovation. The dysfunctional competitive environment that we've had
for the last few years put all the major players in a position where
innovation wasn't encourage. Specifically:

Google. As the market leader with a major marketshare, almost
completely dependent on the search advertising revenue stream, it's
hard to rock that boat too vigorously. Every minor change in the
search UI could have a potentially negative impact on ad
clickthroughs. The dynamics of the SERP are subtle and small changes
can have big impacts on behavior. Given the obsessive focus on
quarterly revenue numbers by Wall Street analysts, and the macro
economic impact of the recession, this was not the time to boldly
screw around with your golden egg-laying goose. Google always speaks a
good game when it comes to hyping their efforts to innovate in search,
but come on, how different is the Google SERP now from what it was 4
years ago? How innovative have they been with AdWords?

Microsoft. Microsoft was the one who was really in a position to
innovate, but despite repeated commitments to search from everyone
from Gates on down for the last several years, the company's track
record has been less than stellar, to be exceedingly kind. Bing is the
first sign that they're motivated to get it right, and that's really
more of a catch up move than anything. But at least they're in the
game now. I think the biggest problem was getting alignment in the
gargantuan, lumbering Microsoft corporate structure. There was a lot
of left hand/right hand lack of communication from Spanky and the gang
in Redmond. It's hard to innovate when you don't even know who's
working on what.

With Bing, Microsoft showed they can execute. Now, let's see if they
can innovate.

Yahoo. You don't innovate on the Titanic: you just try to survive.
Nuff said.

What the Microsoft-Yahoo deal does is allow Microsoft's search
champions to better sell the need to innovate within the company. They
have a bigger market share, can forecast significant revenue potential
and make the case for investing in rapidly upping the search
experience bar. Microsoft can afford the fluctuations that are
inevitable in ad revenue as they experiment with the UI, because
search is a pretty small drop in the revenue bucket. And it's
certainly not that they don't have the resources—all they need is
the corporate prioritization and alignment. This deal may just do that
for them.

A bigger ad inventory

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer sent the signal of the true value of a
Yahoo partnership when he said last December:

"We're fully prepared to compete without any partnership with
Yahoo. We don't need to act. Would it be advantageous for both of us
to make a deal? Look, the fundamental basis for doing the search deal
with Yahoo has to do with critical mass in the advertising
marketplace. It doesn't have to do with technology, or any of these
other things, it really is a market phenomenon. Together we would have
more advertisers… which means we'd have more relevant ads on our
page. We'd have higher monetization levels possible in front of us
because there would be more people bidding on more key words. Most
importantly, Google would have perhaps a real credible competitor
sooner."

Success in search is all about relevancy. And if ads are going to be
part of the results set, those ads better be as relevant as possible.
The bigger the ad inventory, the more relevant they will be. It's a
pretty simple equation.

And ad relevance is massively important to the user experience. At
Enquiro we've done several studies that either directly or indirectly
examined the importance of ad relevance to the overall search
experience. The results are abundantly clear: the better the ads, the
happier the user. The deal gives Microsoft a massive increase in
advertiser inventory, and that's perhaps the most important asset in
the deal. It doesn't matter that Yahoo gets 88% of the revenue. That's
short term thinking. This is about running all those ads through the
Microsoft platform, giving them the ability to control quality,
targeting and relevance. The goal is gaining market share, and you
need the highest quality ads possible to do that.

A stronger commitment from advertisers

No longer is an ad buy on Microsoft tossing them a bone out of guilt
or a gesture of protest against a Google monopoly. With a combined
market share pushing 30 points, that's a serious slice of available
eyeballs. Microsoft just became a mandatory buy. That allows them to
build stronger relationships with advertisers, getting a more serious
commitment in return. If Microsoft can pull the pieces of AdCenter
together like they did with Bing, they'll have a pretty powerful ad
management platform. And Microsoft doesn't suffer from the same
passive-aggressive relationship with marketers that still lingers in
the halls of the Googleplex. Advertisers look at Google with a mixture
of resignation, fear and resentment. More than a few will willing fall
into Microsoft's embrace, now that there's a justifiable reason to do
so.

How does this help the user? Happy advertisers mean happy corporate
execs up in Redmond, which means more of an appetite for innovation.
Expect Microsoft to be more innovative in offering sponsored search
formats. And happy advertisers also means more relevant ads (see my
previous point).

More serious competition for Google

This deal sends a signal Google can't ignore. They're still in the
search driver's seat, but at least now they can see someone in their
rearview mirror. If Microsoft can adopt a passion for innovation and
push the envelope, Google will have to respond in kind. The search
experience will evolve more rapidly, hopefully kicked out of the
revenue obsessed stasis that it's currently in. Stagnation benefits no
one except the analysts and bean counters who insist that quarter over
quarter performance is the only metric that matters. We're way too
early in the game to be that cautious and boring.

Will the Microsoft-Yahoo deal break the Google habit? No. In fact,
Google will probably net a couple more percentage points out of this
in the short term. But this lays the foundation of a more competitive
market place, which can't help but benefit users.

The deal puts Microsoft in the game. Now, let's see what they do with
the opportunity.

Opinions expressed in the article are those of the author, and not
necessarily Search Engine Land.

Gord Hotchkiss <http://searchengineland.com/author/gord-hotchkiss/>
is CEO of Enquiro <http://www.enquiro.com/>
, a search marketing firm that produces search engine user eye
tracking studies <http://www.enquiro.com/eyetrackingreport.asp>
and other research.

--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --

Search In Pictures: Yahoo Sneakers, Google Affiliate Network Party & BingHoo Deal Signed

**Search In Pictures: Yahoo Sneakers, Google Affiliate Network Party
BingHoo Deal Signed**

**by Barry Schwartz**

In this weeks Search In Pictures
<http://searchengineland.com/guides/search_in_pictures.php>
, here are the latest images culled from the web, showing what people
eat at the search engine companies, how they play, who they meet,
where they speak, what toys they have, and more.

Seeing Through Googles Eyes:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/31156494@N05/3754350397/>

Yahoo Sneakers:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/39093465@N07/3761804734/>

Google Affiliate Network Summit Party:

Google Neon Desk Sign:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/webmacster87/3753545397/>

Ballmer Bartz Sign Deal:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/yodelanecdotal/3768403423/>

Google Rocket Pen:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/leverinteractive/3774413225/>

Opinions expressed in the article are those of the author, and not
necessarily Search Engine Land.

Barry Schwartz <http://searchengineland.com/author/barry-schwartz/>

is Search Engine Land's News Editor and owns RustyBrick
<http://www.rustybrick.com/>
, a NY based web consulting firm. He also runs Search Engine
Roundtable <http://www.seroundtable.com/>
, a popular search blog on very advanced SEM topics. Barry's personal
blog is named Cartoon Barry <http://www.cartoonbarry.com/>
and he can be followed on Twitter here
<http://twitter.com/rustybrick>
.