SEO Blog - Internet Marketing News

Should search engine optimisation (SEO) efforts be regulated by the Advertising Standards Agency? Recent discussions over whether or not the UK Code of Advertising Practice should apply to SEO have interested me considerably, because the existing rules simply cannot cater for the sector. Furthermore, while much of the recent debate has centred on whether or not the sector should impose self-regulating standards, I have seen considerably less debate about what those standards should be.

Kerry Nielson, the director of legal and public affairs with the Periodical Publishers Association, told the Association of Online Publishers that it is becoming “increasingly apparent” that some advertising platforms do not fall under the jurisdiction of the code and therefore cannot be investigated or regulated by the ASA. She called upon the online advertising sector to decide whether it wants self regulation or new, targeted legislation and makes some interesting points about the benefits and issues resulting from each possibility.

The ASA itself admits that, while paid-for advertising on the pages of search results fall under its remit, it cannot issue edicts on content which is not in paid-for online space.

However, it is hard to see how any regulator could exercise control on something as all-encompassing as search. The purpose of SEO is not to make wild claims about the brilliance of a product or service; it is, very simply, to shout down the competition. Well done SEO means drowning out all competing online voices, it means raising one company’s visibility at the expense of other firms.

This makes it a pretty unique form of marketing. When Coca Cola advertises its pop it does not follow that Pepsi has to make fewer adverts. There is no limited print space for advertising studenty food over which Pot Noodle and Supernoodles must wrestle. I believe this means that Ofcom or the ASA are unable to effectively monitor the sector, which suggests to me that self-regulation is necessary, if just to stop less-informed groups from imposing rules.

However, I also think that some fairly extensive debate and round table discussion should take place regarding precisely what those rules ought to be. Regulation is coming and we the industry need to act first.

Google has expanded its share of the UK market even further, managing to attract an incredible 87 per cent of visits in May alone, new research shows.

Analysis published by Hitwise has shown that, while Google properties accounted for a substantial 68 per cent of all US searches last month, the search behemoth was responsible for almost nine in ten UK queries.

This represents an increase of 12 per cent on last year’s healthy figures. Google really is the search engine of choice for Brits – and here in the UK, we make an astounding number of searches. In April alone, UK consumers made more than 4.1 billion searches, according to comScore research.

Now, to me and many others, this suggests (Continue Reading…)

A recent conversation with a friend has made me think about how the public perceive search engines.

Readers may have noticed that I often express my amazement at how little the average person considers how their engine of choice selects the websites it offers them, but lately I realised that some people believe search engines have undergone no major changes or evolutions for years. That search portals might in fact be as good as they are going to get.

It was one of those Sunday afternoon chats in a beer garden, where - having mocked each other’s careers for a while – we began to chat about the SEO sector. My friend remarked that it is odd that search engines have failed to improve their accessibility for the end user.

I expressed amazement that he would think this (Continue Reading…)

• Your competitors have never heard of you.
• Your boss thinks a search engine is a mountain rescue helicopter.
• The majority of your clients communicate with you by post.
• Your corporate website includes the legend “.angelfire”.
• Your marketing budget is entirely spent on printing coupons on the back of bus tickets.
• You have no clients in their twenties, thirties or even forties.
• Your IT worker leaves for a job in McDonalds because they want more of a challenge.
• Your marketing executive has taken to drink.
• Your sales figures resemble a graph plotting Gordon Brown’s popularity.
• You think the word blog is something to do with the Flower Pot Men.

Coming shortly after speculation from both Kevin and myself as to how firms would react to the change in Google’s keyword policy, a number of businesses are reportedly considering a legal challenge to the change.

The search engine’s decision to allow businesses to bid for their rivals’ trademarks is widely expected to drive up the cost of pay-per-click advertising in all sectors. Furthermore, in addition to the high cost, firms face the threat that if they fail to buy the advertising space, their loyal consumer will receive a dose of competition awareness, even if they do not choose to click the paid ad.

It was reported that Tesco pledged not to bid on competitors’ trademarks and urged its peers not to either. This certainly seems to be the case at the moment; Googling Tesco or Sainsbury’s throws up no paid ads, although slight misspellings such as Tescos and Sainsburys have pay-per-click ads for BeatThatQuote.com.

Now, though, Marketing Week reports that a “heavyweight” consortium of brands – which it understands includes Lastminute.com and Saga, and which definitely included the Association of British Travel Agents – have met to discuss raising a legal challenge to the change.

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.