This is a true story about how attending the Affiliate Summit made me and my employees millionaires 3 weeks after attending the event.
via ShoeMoney http://ift.tt/2slz6cT
0 Comments
Yes, absurd. That was the first word that came to mind when I read the European Commission’s antitrust ruling against Google and the $2.7 billion fine to go with it on Tuesday. A day or so later, I’d add ill-conceived and misguided to that list. The ruling was levied against Google for breaching EU antitrust rules by giving “illegal advantages to another Google product: its shopping comparison service. Google must end this conduct within 90 days” or face further penalties, European Commission (EC) competition chief Margrethe Vestage said Tuesday. Google says the EU has not proved damage to consumers or its rivals, namely Amazon and eBay. The wrong argumentFirst, let me clearly state that I’m not arguing Google is not dominant. Nor am I arguing that Google doesn’t favor its own shopping results. It clearly does. Because it is a search engine. I’m saying the focus on Shopping is the wrong argument. This type of product favoritism by a search engine is as old as search engines, as our Greg Sterling pointed out when the EC first brought charges pertaining to Google’s Shopping practices in 2015 and Danny Sullivan spelled out in The Incredible Stupidity Of Investigating Google For Acting Like A Search Engine back in 2010 when the EU first started its antitrust probes into Google. A good search engine gives users the most relevant results as fast as possible, otherwise users will stop coming to search. Google’s Shopping product has succeeded in that vein (I’ll get back to this). Google also has real competition in this specific area from Amazon, primarily, but also others, including eBay. When the EC started its multipronged antitrust investigation of Google in 2010, it was little-known comparison shopping engines crying foul that Google was listing product information in a separate section near or at the top of product search results. Individual complainants included Microsoft-owned shopping engine Ciao and price comparison site Foundem. Google’s Shopping engine is now an entirely advertising-based product most prominently seen in blocks of Product Listing Ads (PLAs) that appear at the top of the search results. In response to the EC ruling, Google’s general council, Kent Walker, said, “Thousands of European merchants use these ads to compete with larger companies like Amazon and eBay.” And that’s true. Removing the option for merchants to reach users via Google Shopping would be a significant handicap for those that don’t sell on Amazon and eBay. Sure, there are other search engines (that, by the way, also feature their own paid shopping results at the top of the search results pages), but none have the search volume that can drive the sales volume Google can. This leads to where I think the EC’s ruling is misguided. The EC said that Google has “abused its market dominance in search by promoting its shopping results and demoting its competitors and denied consumers the benefits of competition.” The idea that Google’s Shopping engine has hurt consumers by not featuring CSEs (comparison shopping engines) doesn’t wash. Google’s Shopping ads feature images of products, seller ratings, pricing and link to merchants’ websites. The merchants compete against each other for positioning in those results. If consumers routinely don’t like the results they get on Google, they can search elsewhere. And that’s exactly what consumers started doing -- on Amazon. In 2012, Google started the process of migrating from its free Google Product Search shopping engine for a purely pay-to-play product called Google Shopping. The reason for the move, in Google’s words at the time, was “about delivering the best answers for people searching for products and helping connect merchants with the right customers.” Unsaid was that Amazon was providing a much better product search experience for consumers than Google. Merchants routinely abused Google’s free system or didn’t bother to keep their feeds updated with proper pricing and availability. It was a bad user experience. Another alternative was to click listings or ads for competing CSEs and go to yet another list of search results. Not ideal either. The switch to a paid version was controversial, but the higher barrier to entry — and stricter oversight of merchant data to ensure accuracy — has largely led to better results for users and for merchants. That’s why it’s been such a successful product for Google. (And this is likely why the EC focused in on it instead of another vertical.) How important is Shopping to Google?
So what’s next?Google has 60 days to give the EC a plan to offer “equal treatment” to CSEs and 90 days to implement it or additional fines start accruing. Is the answer to also show a separate series of product listing ads from a competing CSE on the page? Google already proposed that. The desktop version looked like this: Anyway, that got scrapped, along with other concessions, when settlement talks collapsed in the fall of 2014, which is why Google is in the position it’s in now. (If you haven’t read Brad Stone and Vernon Silver’s account of how that all went south, bookmark it now.) Google could propose a hybrid version like the one above again, opt to drop Shopping altogether or come up with a whole new alternative. It’s hard to see how the EC will have accomplished its goals if Google does indeed remove PLAs from EU results. The big winner if that happens? Amazon, which unlike eBay doesn’t buy PLAs, just loads of text ads on Google. As others have already stated, this ruling also sets a precedent for legal examinations of Google’s other vertical search and advertising-based services like travel and local. And Google is still facing two other European Commission antritrust cases: one involving Android and the other, AdSense. The Android case revolves around Android OEMs having to preinstall Google Search and Chrome apps in order to get access to the Google Play store and other efforts to limit competition and shore up its dominant market position. Think Microsoft and Windows back in the day. Will this bring a return of US scrutiny?It could. On Tuesday, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal issued a call for renewed focus by the FTC. “Here in the United States, the FTC must confront the mounting evidence that Google is manipulating search results in anticompetitive ways and possibly running afoul of our antitrust laws.” Google narrowly avoided a similar formal ruling and potential fines in the US several years ago. A report by a group at the FTC that was accidentally released to The Wall Street Journal came to the same conclusion — that Google abused its market dominance and gave preferential placement to its own products over its competitors, harming consumers and innovation. Of particular issue in that finding, though, was Google’s use of TripAdvisor and Yelp content on its local results. Google’s political maneuvering apparently helped it avoid a ruling and fines. The FTC closed its investigation in January 2013, saying there was not enough evidence to prove “search bias.” Google, in part, agreed “to refrain from misappropriating online content from so-called ‘vertical’ websites that focus on specific categories such as shopping or travel for use in its own vertical offerings.” That agreement also led to the ads API that enables advertisers to import their AdWords campaigns directly into Bing Ads, then Microsoft Ad Center. As Search Engine Land’s Greg Sterling said of the agreement at the time, “I think what can be definitively said is that this is a major victory for Google (capital M).” Blumenthal, for one, supports reopening that 2013 probe. It’s the data, stupidThere are many who are glad to see Google get its comeuppance. But this particular avenue seems a shortsighted way of going about it. Want to have a real impact on Google and the other digital behemoths? Take aim at their data. That’s where their leverage and market advantage lie and why their dominance will only continue to get stronger. It’s not a hard argument to make that Google has a monopoly on digital user data across its web of services from Search to YouTube to DoubleClick to Analytics to Android to Gmail. Google has so much data on us it doesn’t need to scan consumer emails anymore for ad targeting. It’s precisely these data connections that make Google and Facebook such powerful and effective magnets for marketers. It’s the network effect of Facebook and the tethered ecosystem of Google — oh, and the fact that people love the companies’ products — that lures the vast numbers of users that marketers want to reach. I happen to believe that on the whole, consumers benefit from the personalization that can come from the machines knowing things about us. But this is an area governments and regulators need to understand better, and quickly, to ensure consumers don’t lose total control of their personal data to corporate entities. On this side of the pond, the US Senate’s move this spring to reverse incoming privacy protection rules and allow internet providers to sell consumer data without consent is not a good sign that they understand the long-term implications. Lawmakers have not proposed a plan that would address data privacy in a comprehensive way and include the Facebook and Google duopoly as well as AT&T and Verizon. (I still subconsciously raise my eyebrows thinking back on a conversation with an AOL exec in which he told me ecstatically about the first time he got a look at all the kinds of data Verizon has on people.) Data is where GDPR could have an impact in the EU. That impact will look very different, however, if GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) treats Google as a single entity, rather than requiring user consent from each product. The latter would mean Google’s data threads could easily be severed. The former would further reinforce Google’s data dominance. Tuesday’s EC decision points to a lack of understanding of how search engines work and the real concerns that come from one search engine dominating our lives. Regulating in the name of giving competing CSEs a lifeline is not the answer. The post What to make of the EU’s absurd antitrust ruling against Google appeared first on Search Engine Land. via Search Engine Land http://ift.tt/2t54UzO Over the last decade, SEO has morphed into a complex field encroaching on UX, content marketing, and even web development. At the same time, a wide range of organizations are now running full force on to the web; yet they often fail to consider the possibility of bringing an SEO specialist in-house. Based on conversations with colleagues, it really comes down to the fact that organizations lack commitment from the C-suite and/or proper resources to find the right candidate. One then must beg the question: Is it worth bringing someone in? I decided to reach out to several SEO leaders in the industry to get their points of view, while closely examining my past experience. I have had the privilege over the last decade to primarily work as an in-house SEO manager for several e-commerce organizations. Even early on in my career, I recognized the value of SEO to the entire organization — from a merchant researching products to onboard, to a content team researching valuable topics to address, I was always there to provide strategic insight on potential growth. But what else can an in-house SEO really do? Political landscape negotiatorEvery organization will have teams that focus on different goals, perspectives and responsibilities. As SEOs, it is our job to achieve true collaboration. We can drive all the traffic you want, but that’s not very valuable if the customer doesn’t convert! Whether it’s a company picnic or a department outing, we need to focus on establishing personal company-wide rapport. Example 1I wanted to figure out how to improve customer experience on a page template without having to go through a code change. I noticed a prominent section that our team does not have access to and decided to reach out to all my key contacts companywide to find out who manages it. After a couple of discussions, I quickly learned that the process for updating this content area was manual, but possible. I soon realized the additional untapped potential that we could now leverage to influence customer behavior. At the same time, I can now work with that team to streamline the process — all thanks to the fact that I regularly focus my time on looking for areas of improvement and cross-company communication. Example 2User experience has quickly taken off as a huge factor for SEO, and I find the field fascinating. I began meeting with our talented UX team regularly to better understand how they develop wireframes that dictate usability. This led to having the opportunity to visit several customers to observe their browsing behavior, and I even got to try my hand at wire-framing. These efforts have yielded a shift in which the UX and SEO teams work hand-in-hand to develop a truly optimized experience. Initiating change from withinMany organizations migrating to the web often overlook what a monumental change it is for the entire company. Existing companywide processes — even those that have nothing to do with the web — often need to be overhauled to encompass the new digital strategy. But how? An organization needs to bring in a seasoned SEO who not only understands the current search landscape but also understands how search will impact their overall industry five or more years from now. This is how they can help their company stay ahead instead of just playing catch-up — innovation is key! Modern SEOs are no longer just keyword optimizers — we are ingrained into content strategy, UX and web development, as well as social. Example 1A decisive content strategy that infuses best SEO/customer-centric practices is instrumental for every organization. When I first joined my current company, I quickly discovered many parts of the organization were developing and launching content sporadically, but there didn’t seem to be a consistent direction or measurement strategy in place. I met with every part of the organization to better understand what their intended outcome was. I then created an easy-to-follow SEO/customer-centric one-page funnel content strategy that could be utilized companywide (including negotiated costs for each type and potential outcomes) and followed up with everyone to get feedback and make revisions. The outcome was a clear content strategy that anyone at the company can utilize to effectively drive whatever goal they are trying to accomplish. Doing something of this magnitude without being internal would be very challenging, if not impossible. Example 2Reputation management is a very touchy subject, as well as a really important one for an organization — yet many don’t prioritize it. Even before joining the organization, I did some searching across varied review sites and noticed there seemed to be a reputation situation brewing. I decided to go through every comment and look for patterns or issues that could be quickly addressed and put together a document of my findings. I then spent some time discussing the situation with leadership, customer service and the sales team. We had to not only make a change in the level of service we were providing, but also make sure our customers knew there was a way to leave feedback on these third-party review sites. We are aggressively forging a path toward progress in improving our online reputation, and I am excited to see what we can do as an organization to ensure that the few less positive experiences our customers may have had do not harm the company as a whole. Agency’s best friendHaving a seasoned in-house SEO is key for any organization — especially if they plan to onboard an SEO agency. An in-house SEO is able to strategically prep an agency on developing realistic KPIs that align with company objectives. They can also help deal with technical limitations, expedite onboarding and assist with any execution. The alternative often unfolds, with an agency spending months in the discovery stage, followed by execution. Next thing you know, it’s time to renew the contract, yet the organization hasn’t even assessed whether the KPIs have ever been met. Did your organization hire an agency without clear objectives and a measurement plan? You are not alone. I have heard dozens of similar accounts. Agencies often make a big laundry list of SEO recommendations and fixes. Yet very few clients think to ask, “What do we anticipate the end result to be?” or “How do we prioritize these tasks?” Besides the fact that search engines are experimenting every single day with new features, and most businesses are trying to move quickly, an organization needs to make sure that an in-house individual is able to understand the entire landscape and effectively guide the agency to success. Additionally, without a dedicated in-house SEO person, the learning curve on how an organization functions and what is feasible is often very steep — to a point where an agency can be quickly set up to fail. Are you convinced?The perfect combination for any organization that is taking digital seriously is to have an in-house SEO coupled with a strategic agency. It’s also really important that the SEO lead documents strategy for easy onboarding. Your in-house SEO should always be learning new tech, should be able to pivot quickly in the face of new developments and should be versatile across the entire digital landscape. Think about this: Gartner predicts that by 2020, “30 percent of web browsing sessions will be done without a screen.” Will your company be ready? Leading SEOs are on the front line testing, researching and forecasting the next phase of search. Make sure your organization is not left behind! The post The value of an in-house SEO appeared first on Search Engine Land. via Search Engine Land http://ift.tt/2u2lwIu This week is all about good, old-fashioned pragmatism. It’s about the specific tactics you can use to start getting the results you’re looking for — sooner rather than later. On Monday, Stefanie Flaxman gave us some suggestions on timing when you want to approach that busy influencer with your killer idea or humble request. On Tuesday, Jerod Morris let us know about the launch of Sites, a new podcast that helps you build the website you need to reach your goals. And on Wednesday, I outlined specific steps you can take to gain momentum when no one knows who you are (yet). Your “1,000 True Fans” aren’t going to show up overnight, but there is a path you can take to get to them. Over on Copyblogger FM, I talked about the “killer and the poet” — and what to do if you need a little boost in one of those two roles. And … did we mention the new Sites podcast? I’m rather partial to the one that Jerod recorded based on my Digital Sharecropping post. We have four episodes for you at this launch. Each episode of Sites focuses on one of the four pillars of a successful website: content, design, technology, and strategy. The episodes are punchy and focused, and will get you right to the information you need. That’s it for this week — have a great weekend, and we’ll see you Monday. Chief Content Officer, Rainmaker Digital Catch up on this week’s contentWhen to Send Article Pitches (and Other Important Emails)by Stefanie Flaxman How to Build a Better WordPress Website … One Week at a Timeby Jerod Morris 7 Ways to Find Readers and Subscribers When No One Knows You Yetby Sonia Simone Advice for Poets, Advice for Killersby Sonia Simone The Simple 3-Step Process to a Winning Content Marketing Strategyby Jerod Morris How Great Design Can Help Your Content Marketingby Jerod Morris Is WordPress Hosting Really That Important?by Jerod Morris The Most Dangerous Threat to Your Content Marketing Strategyby Jerod Morris How Merriam-Webster Lexicographer and Author Kory Stamper Writes: Part Twoby Kelton Reid The post Practical Tips to Move You Toward Your Content Marketing Goals appeared first on Copyblogger. via Copyblogger http://ift.tt/2tsEb3n The fundamentals of our business has not changed. It’s still a relationship business. Tina and Joe Gonzales shows us the one thing about duplication that you need to know. Also the simple invite you can apply to you business or product. Here’s your chance to finally own my most treasured collection of network marketing training… Reports, Checklists, and Implementation guides. Literally everything I use to grow and operate my network marketing business. Who is Tina and Joe Gonzales?Tina and Joe Gonzales are full time leaders and have been in the network marketing profession for the past 6 years. Joe was a former commercial real estate banker while Tina was a small business owner. They discovered the MLM profession after the recent banking and financial crisis. In their first MLM business, Joe and Tina built a multiple 6 figure business in after their 3rd year. In their current company, they are Top earners and have earned over $100,000 in their first 6 months. Favorite QuoteJoe Gonzales: “Success is nothing more than a few daily disciplines practiced everything single day” (Jim Rohn) Tina: “People are waiting for you your success to outlast their fears” Must Read BookGo Pro by Eric Worre Recommended Online AppRecommended Prospecting ToolVideo Contact InfoFacebook What Did You Learn?Thanks for joining me on the show. So what did you learn? If you enjoyed this episode please share it on social media and send it to someone that needs extra motivation in their MLM business. Do you have any thoughts or comments? Please take 60 seconds to leave an HONEST review for the MLM Nation Podcast on iTunes. Ratings and reviews are extremely important for me to make this show better. Finally, don’t forget to subscribe to the show on iTunes so that you get updates and new episodes downloaded to your phone automatically. Click Here to Subscribe via iTunes Click here to Subscribe via Stitcher Click Here to Subscribe via RSS (non-iTunes feed) The post 353: How Knowing Our Numbers Helped Us Hit 6 Figures In 6 Months By Tina and Joe Gonzales appeared first on MLM Nation: Network Marketing Training | Prospecting | Lead Generation | Leadership | Duplication | Motivation. via MLM Nation: Network Marketing Training | Prospecting | Lead Generation | Leadership | Duplication | Motivation http://ift.tt/2tmHAzM The Canadian Supreme Court has ordered Google to de-index an e-commerce site — globally. This sets a disastrous precedent that opens the door for other governments (and private parties) across the globe to try and control or censor Google’s search results. The case was Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions. The plaintiff, a small tech company in British Columbia, sued its former distributer, which was selling allegedly “counterfeit versions” of its products online. An initial injunction against the defendant company failed to stop the behavior. The present case against Google went up on appeal and the Supreme Court granted a worldwide injunction against Google:
The Canadian Supreme Court agreed with the lower court ruling that simply blocking or de-indexing the infringing site on Google.ca would insufficiently enforce the injunction and thus justified the global ban against the company. As a practical matter the court’s reasoning may be accurate — similar to the French privacy regulator’s logic in seeking to enforce the “Right to Be Forgotten” globally. However it’s a bad decision and establishes a terrible precedent. Companies and governments unhappy with the way they are represented in search results could seek, on some pretense or quasi-legal basis, to not only censor Google domestically but internationally. Governments such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia or China could pass laws demanding removal of critical or “offensive” content that’s politically unpalatable or disagreeable. For example, China might seek to globally censor political discussions about Tibet or the Dalai Lama. Russia could ask Google to remove content about Russia’s Western-election hacking or critical of Putin, as destabilizing to the regime. Saudi Arabia or Pakistan might seek global removal of content critical of Islam or the Prophet Muhammad. Sound implausible or unlikely? Yet that’s what the Canadian decision opens the door to. Indeed, laws censoring the internet under the jurisdiction of one country could be extended internationally using the Canadian court’s logic: the intended objective cannot be fully achieved without global application. Ultimately Google’s recourse would be to pull out of the country entirely. Who gets to control or censor the internet? That’s what’s at stake. And while factually it could be argued that the court’s decision makes sense, there are larger, more important principles that should trump the rights of the individual corporate plaintiff in this case. No single country should be able to dictate what people in other countries or regions get to read or see. But that’s precisely what the Canadian ruling sets the stage for, permitting unprincipled governments and companies to try to disappear “objectionable” or “illegal” content. That’s why it’s so dangerous to free speech and to the future of the internet. The post Canada Supreme Court orders Google to de-index site globally, opening door to censorship appeared first on Search Engine Land. via Search Engine Land http://ift.tt/2tmg2ek Voice search is commonly discussed in the context of local and B2C SEO, but it’s being used for more than just getting directions to nearby restaurants or hearing the next step in a recipe while cooking. Voice search is being adopted for a variety of purposes, and its influence on B2B decision-makers is growing as well. By looking at who’s using voice search, why they’re using it, and where they’re using it, it becomes very clear that the impact of voice search on B2B SEO is inevitable. Adoption of the technology is on the rise, so it’s time for brands to begin optimizing for voice search. Who’s using voice technology?As early as 2014, 55 percent of teens and 41 percent of adults were already using voice technology daily. Adults use it to dictate texts, illustrating a desire to avoid typing on small devices. Teens use it to get help with homework, demonstrating an early adoption of voice technology for organic search. And those statistics were gathered before the proliferation of voice-operated personal assistant devices:
As adoption of personal assistant devices continues to increase, people will become more accustomed to operating technology using voice commands. This familiarity will inevitably translate to organic search, even in B2B markets, because of the one common denominator in everyone’s reason for using voice technology: ease of use. Why do people use voice search? (And why is its rule imminent?)While familiarity with personal assistant technology will encourage more people to try voice search, it is convenience that will really drive adoption. The top reasons people use voice search are almost all related to improved user experience. People use voice search because it’s faster, simpler and more user-friendly. It simplifies searching for individuals who struggle to type on small devices, and it helps searchers avoid navigating confusing site menus. It’s also faster than searching by text, guided by improved accuracy in the technology. And that’s not just people’s perception: Google’s voice recognition technology is now 95 percent accurate — improved nearly 20 percent since 2013. On average, humans can speak more than three times as many words per minute as they can type. If voice recognition is just as accurate as typing, the speed of voice search provides a compelling justification for adoption. Voice search provides a better user experience, particularly on mobile devices. Given that 90 percent of executives use mobile devices to conduct research before making a purchase, it’s not hard to imagine that those executives will transition to voice search — not to mention the next generation of B2B buyers who are growing up with the technology as second nature. Where do people use voice search?If the most popular reason for using voice search is occupied hands/vision, then it’s easy to assume that people are using voice search in their cars and kitchens. But there are many other places where people use voice search: Nearly 50 percent of respondents in a recent survey conducted by Stone Temple Consulting reported that they use voice search at the office. And, while most people are uncomfortable using voice search in public, individuals in the highest income bracket are, interestingly, the least likely to be inhibited about using voice search in front of others: So here’s what we know:
All things considered, the importance of voice search in B2B marketing becomes hard to ignore. How to prepare for B2B voice searchSome predict that by 2020, 50 percent of all searches will be conducted by voice. Current numbers show that this prediction may not be too much of a stretch: last year, Google reported that 20 percent of its mobile queries were already voice searches. To prepare for the impact of voice search on B2B SEO, marketers should take steps now to begin optimizing for voice queries. There are three major ways to optimize site content for voice search:
The best part of taking time to optimize for voice search is that it improves overall SEO as well. Mobile optimization and page load speeds are already ranking factors, long-tail keywords comprise half of all searches, and featured snippets can drive traffic by securing a position-zero result. Voice search SEO isn’t really a separate initiative — it’s just an expansion or reprioritization of existing SEO best practices. Voice search and B2B SEOVoice search is used by people of all ages at home, in the car and in the office. And the rise of personal assistant devices, combined with the improved accuracy of voice recognition technology, will continue to drive voice search adoption through the end of the decade. B2B brands are not exempt from voice search’s impact on user behavior, and these companies should take time now to begin focusing on voice search optimization. Get started by optimizing existing content for featured snippets. Find keywords you’re currently ranking on page one for, analyze search results for user intent, and update your content to provide a direct answer. This will help boost brand recognition when a digital assistant reads your business’s name as the source of an answer in response to a voice search query. The post Voice search and SEO: Why B2B marketers need to pay attention now appeared first on Search Engine Land. via Search Engine Land http://ift.tt/2s3eKRA As a paid search and shopping platform, Google is our most important partner. This doesn’t mean that I would refrain from highlighting critical aspects of things Google is doing. I’ve written about their low-price bias numerous times and the advertising digital duopoly created by Google and Facebook that puts retailers in a tough spot. That being said, this new European Union (EU) fine makes absolutely no sense. EU antitrust regulators recently slapped Google with a 2.4 billion-euro fine for favoring its own shopping search results over those of other price-comparison websites. Now the fine itself, while it may sound huge to you and me, is a drop in the bucket for an entity like Google. When your market value is 90 billion, fines like these aren’t necessarily that big of a deal. What concerns me (and, from the sounds of it, Google) are the regulatory changes that may force them to give equal treatment to smaller price-comparison services that compete with Google Shopping ads, which appear when people search for products. Right now, Google Shopping is reserved for retailers alone. Price comparison sites like Idealo or Ladenzeile in Germany are not allowed to put ads through Google Shopping. Nor does Google show Shopping ads from its direct competitors like Bing and Amazon. Now, I’m not one of those uber-capitalists who think it’s life or death out there. More competition is good and indeed needed, especially when it comes to online advertising. But, what the EU fails to understand is that forcing Google to show more price-comparison services creates a bad user experience for those of us who actually use Google. Let me explain. Why Google Shopping worksGoogle Shopping only works as an ad platform because it is pleasant to use from the perspective of the consumer. If you’re looking to buy a product, you can get a lot more of the relevant information up front from a Shopping ad than you can from the corresponding Text ad. Google doesn’t specifically state how many users click on PLAs vs Text ads, but retail spending data would lead us to believe it’s significant. Because Shopping reaches people lower in the funnel, they also convert better than Text ads. Our internal data shows that 80% of Shopping ads convert within the first five days (compared to 13 days for Text ads) and that Shopping ads bring in more than double the amount of conversions. These are people who have done their research and are searching for product-specific terms because they are ready to buy. Google has spent a lot of effort testing and perfecting these ads over time to make sure the user experience is as strong as possible for the consumer, and therefore the ad medium is highly enticing to retailers. To that end, there’s a reason they didn’t let price comparison sites into the party. Ruining the user experienceForcing Google to allow price comparison sites, or eventually even Bing/Amazon, into their Shopping auction adds another step for consumers to get to the products they want. It essentially forces them to go through a third party. Right now, you search for a product on Google, spy the one you like in the Shopping ads section, and presto — you’re on the retail website with your first click. By adding the third step of going to a comparison price engine before you get to the retail website, you’ve complicated the process. Users do not like complicated. The more clicks you put between someone and the end goal (buying a product) the less likely they are to cross the finish line. Having to go through a third party to reach the product you want is a terrible user experience. And if the experience becomes too poor, consumers will ultimately stop using the service. Does it really increase competition?By letting price comparison sites advertise through Shopping, Google actually stands to make more money in the short term. More companies advertising in Google Shopping means more competition for traffic and therefore higher CPCs. Most aggregation services have millions of products available, giving them an astronomical number of search terms for which they could run. They’re not shy about spending on digital advertising, either. I’d estimate that comparison price engines collectively spend more than 250 million euro/year on text ads in the EU. If CPCs from all these new players get too high, it could push out a lot of the small to mid-size retailers, making it impossible for them to compete. This would ruin the user experience even further and ultimately reduce competition in Shopping. Google was definitely thinking long-term when they decided to exclude price comparison sites from Shopping. Whether the court’s decision will have any impact at all is still a big question mark. Sites like Idealo have to play an arbitrage game, which means they have to pay less for a click on Google than what they receive from their partners for a click-out. Alternatively, they’d need to generate several clicks to partner sites from a single click coming from Google Shopping. Time will tell whether this will be viable, or to what extent. What’s a poor Google to do?Google only has 90 days to comply with the EU’s demands, and it will be interesting to see what they decide to do. One potential option is for them to give slightly lower Quality Scores to ads created by price comparison companies. It’s very likely that this would already be enough to prevent them from doing this sort of arbitrage. That way, they would technically be able to comply with the EU’s rules without totally ruining the Shopping experience. But, would the EU really be happy with that? If they decide to keep fighting, can they force Google to reveal their algorithm? Will Google have to open up text ads to more competition as well? Where does it all end? What the EU is asking Google to do is to implement changes that will negatively impact users and retailers. And that doesn’t make any sense to me. I think this was a bad decision made by a governing body that doesn’t really understand the way the internet economy works. The post How the EU fine will ruin Google Shopping for the consumer appeared first on Search Engine Land. via Search Engine Land http://ift.tt/2snoF3G Below is what happened in search today, as reported on Search Engine Land and from other places across the web. From Search Engine Land:
Recent Headlines From Marketing Land, Our Sister Site Dedicated To Internet Marketing:
Search News From Around The Web:Industry
Local & Maps
Link Building Searching
SEO
SEM / Paid Search
The post SearchCap: Google News redesign, AdWords tests headlines & speed tool upgrade appeared first on Search Engine Land. via Search Engine Land http://ift.tt/2snBuLt Tech bloggers love to test and compare rival products. There’s an underlying assumption that the better product will always win. But other factors (e.g., price, brand and so on) can get in the way of rational market outcomes. A new study from agency 360i (reported in Adweek) asserts that Google Home is much more likely to answer people’s questions than Amazon Alexa.The headline is Google Home is “six times more ‘effective’ than Alexa.” The study was based on 3,000 questions being asked to both devices. Beyond the conclusion, little else was reported about the nature of the questions or where Home succeeded and Alexa faltered. Apple’s Siri and Microsoft’s Cortana were apparently not part of the test. The company says that additional findings will be revealed in the weeks ahead. An earlier comparison from Stone Temple Consulting involving “5,000 different questions about everyday factual knowledge” on Google Home, Alexa, Siri and Cortana generally agreed with the 360i data. The Stone Temple study, however, found that there was a smaller gap between the volume of questions answered by the two devices and that Alexa was nearly as accurate for the questions answered. Do consumers care?Here’s where it gets interesting. What if the mass of consumers doesn’t really care whether Google Home can answer more general knowledge/search-style questions? Currently, the primary use cases for these devices are areas where Alexa does relatively well:
Virtual assistants on smartphones are used much more broadly, and over time, smartphone use cases and smart speaker use cases may more directly overlap, which gives Google (and maybe Apple) a clear advantage. However, if usage of smart speakers remains relatively defined, Amazon retains a competitive advantage. Why? Because of its more diversified device lineup (Echo, Show, Dot) at multiple price points, its customer loyalty (Prime members) and its direct sales channel. According to estimates from eMarketer, Amazon currently has a 71 percent share of the smart speaker market. Google Home comes in around 24 percent. Another forecast says that there will be 30 million smart speakers/virtual assistants in people’s homes by the end of the year. This is a big and important market, which is why Google developed Home and Apple is releasing HomePod. There’s high awareness of and interest in HomePod, but it remains to be seen whether people will pay the $349 Apple wants for the device, when Home and Alexa devices are cheaper. From a rational perspective, Google is the best-positioned among these competitors, given Android, its search index and its coverage across devices. But we’ll see if consumers really care about that. The post Study argues Google Home 6X ‘more effective’ than Alexa, but will consumers care? appeared first on Search Engine Land. via Search Engine Land http://ift.tt/2tYyTd3 |
Archives
March 2024
Categories |