Should We Stop Focusing On Keyword Driven Anchors?

Comments Off

Posted on 23rd November 2010 by Mission E-Commerce in Google

With the rush to move sites up to the top of the SERPs, all of my clients want keyword-rich text links. It makes sense, as if you’re trying to rank number one for the phrase “cheap environmental home design” you’re obviously going to want that in your anchor text. However, there’s much more to the general link health of a site than loads of properly keyword-ized text links, and, in fact, we’re occasionally seeing that having too few non-keyword based links can actually be a detriment.

Having a good link profile is really no different than any of the other basic SEO ideas. You want your efforts to enable the site to continually perform well online, even with major algorithmic shifts. You also want what you’ve done to be adaptable in order to update it to match what’s newly favored in the major search engines without harming it in others. This is why SEO is an ongoing process, just like link building.

Also, just as any new “trick” is abused in order to make you rank higher, so is a mostly keyword driven link approach. Last year, for example, one of our clients was ranking in the top 3 positions in Google for our two desired terms. Our efforts had been focused on building inbound links with this exact anchor text, and it worked.

As this client works in a highly competitive industry, the only way that we could successfully compete was to keep building more and more links with the phrase as anchor text. Then one day, we noticed the rankings dropping, but we were still cranking out the links. We saw a ripple effect with most of our clients, with phrases that had been ranking very well suddenly starting to drop while we were continuing our efforts. Once a link building tactic becomes the sole focus, it usually stops working so well.

Since we like to think about what a natural link profile looks like and use that as a guideline when building new links, we need to really think about how people link. Do they use cleverly optimized anchor text? Sometimes, yes. Many more times, though, they link with brand text, site name text, or URL text. They link with all sorts of crazy noise anchors too.

As we’ve been trying to achieve the highest rankings for competitive keywords, we’ve caused link profiles to look fairly unnatural though. If you see a link profile that is 95% optimized anchor text, it’s a bit odd isn’t it? Before, we’d see a link profile that was mostly brand and URL anchors and think that we needed to switch it up with some targeted anchors, but it seems that in some cases, we’ve gone so far the other way that the balance of power has shifted. Again. Lesson learned.

I guess this just goes to show you that no matter what unnatural methods you employ (and which ones are natural anyway?), you’ll be changing them up again the moment everyone else follows suit and algorithms change to reflect the manipulation. However, with the emphasis on backlink anchor text, how are you expected to rank a site in a highly competitive niche without building loads of keyword driven anchor text links? It’s frustrating.

It’s why clients want specific anchor text, and they want it now. Links have been such a fast way to move a site up in the rankings, and everyone knows it. Clients who would happily wait 6 months to see the results of changes made to their site’s structure will fuss like mad if your links don’t rank them in the top ten the first month. This is partially our fault as salespeople, of course, but it’s a big, big issue.

When it comes down to it, there are definitely some basic principles of SEO. One of them, relevant here, is that brand/URL links do happen naturally. We put brands in our title tags, in our meta descriptions, and in our content, simply because that’s the most natural thing to do when describing our sites. Keywords are definitely important, but overemphasizing them can make it so obvious that you’re trying to manipulate the SERPs. I think it’s completely natural that people will indeed link to you using keywords…they just might not always be your optimum choices, and they won’t usually fall into the 95% range.

One final thought…if you think about social media, and how we’re told to promote ourselves and our companies through it. It’s about building a community around a brand, so why not apply that mentality to link building?

http://searchengineland.com/should-we-stop-focusing-on-keyword-drivenanchors-56154?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+searchengineland+%28Search+Engine+Land%3A+Google%2C+Bing%2C+SEO%2C+PPC%2C+SEM+

%26+Search+Marketing+News%29

Study: Change From “Sponsored Links” To “Ads” Increased CTRs On Google

Comments Off

Posted on 16th November 2010 by Mission E-Commerce in Google

Last week we wrote about research conducted by Harvard Business School’s Ben Edelman. The study examined the issue of labeling on paid ads in search. The study found that a hypothetical change from “sponsored link” to “paid advertisement” resulted in “25% to 33% fewer clicks” on those ads.

Now a study from SEM firm The Search Agency finds something interesting and perhaps in opposition to Edelman’s findings. The firm examined the impact on client CTRs after the switch from “sponsored links” to “ads.” What the SEM firm found was that CTRs increased 11.4 percent “since Google went to the “Ads” disclosure label, with no significant shift in average position or CPC.”

There’s no obvious explanation for the discrepancy between Edelman’s research and that of The Search Agency, however the two are not necessarily in direct opposition. A skeptic’s view would be that “ads” is harder to see than “sponsored link” and people may not be aware that those links are in fact ads. It’s not clear.

It would be difficult to argue that “ads” makes those links more appealing. Traditionally paid links have received many fewer clicks than organic listings on Google and people are generally wary of advertising. This is the argument that Edelman’s research is also making.

I’d be interested if others are seeing a similar impact on client campaigns or whether CTRs have remained the same since the labeling change.

http://searchengineland.com/study-googles-change-from-sponsored-links-to-ads-increased-ctrs-56136?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+searchengineland+%28Search+Engine+Land%3A+Google%2C+Bing%2C+SEO%2C+PPC%2C+SEM+%26+S

earch+Marketing+News%29

Study: Clear Ad Labeling Reduces Paid Clicks By 25 Percent

Comments Off

Posted on 9th November 2010 by Mission E-Commerce in Google

Google has just changed the labeling on its paid search ads from “sponsored links” to “ads.” Described by Google as being in a “limited trial” there was no further explanation behind the change. Harvard Business School’s Ben Edelman is ambivalent about the change. While it more clearly identifies what the links are, the word “ads” is smaller and arguably harder to notice.

Edelman believes the labels should unambiguously read “paid advertisement” to comply with FTC disclosure guidelines. He makes this argument in a new article that also contains some interesting consumer research (.pdf). The research, based on controlled behavioral testing and surveys of roughly 300 consumers, showed that when the words “sponsored listings” (or their eqivalents) are replaced with the phrase “paid advertisement,” paid clicks decline — dramatically.

Here’s a summary of the overall findings in Edelman’s words:

[F]or a random subset of users, we change “sponsored link” labels to instead read “paid advertisement.” We find that users receiving the “paid advertisement” label click 25% to 33% fewer advertisements and correctly report that they click fewer advertisements, controlling for the number of advertisements they actually click. Results are most pronounced for commercial searches, and for users with low income, low education, and little online experience.

There’s an extensive discussion of the study and its methodology in Edelman’s article: “Sponsored Links” or “Advertisements”?: Measuring Labeling Alternatives in Internet Search Engines.

Edelman wants Google to adopt “paid advertisement” but his study found that the wording reduced ad clicks by least 25 percent, even in a  commercial query context. This pretty clearly suggests that if Google were to adopt the “paid advertisement” label it runs the risk of biting into paid search revenues.

Google’s on track to make $30 billion this year. A 25 percent revenue decline amounts to roughly $7 billion off the topline. Even if we use a smaller subset of revenues as the base, it’s still a very material number (billions) that Google might lose if Edelman’s research can be generalized to larger online populations.

Clearly Google doesn’t want to discourage users from clicking on ads. It’s very unlikely that, unless compelled by regulators or lawmakers to do so, the company will adopt the phrase “paid advertisement,” as Edelman recommends — especially after reading his research.

Yet the FTC has provided no “magic language” that must appear on PPC ads. Rather it has said that paid results need to be “clearly delineated” from organic results:

Each separate set of paid placement listings should be clearly labeled as such so they can be easily distinguished from other types. Of the 12 search sites owned or operated by the 7 named search engine companies, 11 segregate paid ranking results by placing them above the non-paid results or prominently elsewhere. Many of these sites appear to be headed in the right direction, using terms such as “Sponsored Links” or “Sponsored Search Listings” to denote payment for rankings. In some cases, these sites display more than one set of paid placement listings, and these additional listings are labeled using terms such as “Recommended Sites,” “Featured Listings,” “Premier Listings,” “Search Partners,” “Provided by the [________] Network,” or “Start Here.” Other sites use much more ambiguous terms such as “Products and Services,” “News,” “Resources,” “Featured Listings,” “Partner Search Results,” or “Spotlight,” or no labels at all. To avoid deception, these sites should be labeled to better convey that paid placement is being used.

It would be hard to argue persuasively that “ads” fails to clearly disclose the nature of the associated listings. It might be reasonable, however, to require the font to be of a certain minimum size or relative proportion so that it can be easily seen vs. other text or images.

http://searchengineland.com/study-clear-search-ad-labeling-reduces-clicks-by-25-percent-55179?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+searchengineland+%28Search+Engine+Land%3A+Google%2C+

Bing%2C+SEO%2C+PPC%2C+SEM+%26+Search+Marketing+News%29

OTA Coalition Forms, Calls Google+ITA Deal A Threat To Consumers And Competition

Comments Off

Posted on 1st November 2010 by Mission E-Commerce in Google

Last week, it was announced that FairSearch.org was formed by a group of travel and technology businesses, including  Expedia Inc. ( Expedia.com, Hotwire , TripAdvisor),  Farelogix,  KAYAK.com and  SideStep; and Sabre Holdings, owners of Travelocity to lobby against Google’s acquisition of ITA software (for $700 million) which provides data to a number of top travel websites, including Bing Travel (Farecast).

Speculation worried the travel industry for months leading up to the formal announcement on July 1, 2010, and ever since then, Google’s Acquisition of ITA has been highly scrutinized by industry insiders.

Constantly a topic of conversation at travel industry conferences (Google’s Director of Travel Rob Torres was not surprisingly tight-lipped at a recent EyeForTravel conference) and with the industry’s annual powerhouse event, PhocusWright Conference in Phoenix next week, the formation of the FairSearch organization should provide even more fuel for the fire.

What we know though, for the moment, is that the DOJ is actively engaged in a thorough review of the deal to determine the potential antitrust issues.

FairSearch is putting a lot of effort into making its voice heard, arguing that consumers stand to lose the most when search results can be manipulated to favor backroom partnership deals and transparency should lead to more choices (and savings) for travel consumers. Another major point of contention is that this deal would smother innovation among travel technology companies.  FairSearch summarized its key points in a PDF factsheet noting the competitive threats in a Google+ITA deal.

The Google Public Policy Blog did post a statement in response the group’s launch, providing a fact sheet on why Google’s best travel answers are “fair and square’ for users, pointing out there will still be consumer choice: “ITA does not set ticket prices or sell tickets, but merely analyzes data about seat availability and fares — which are set by airlines — and provides that analysis to websites.”

Google also maintains that this deal will lead to greater innovation in travel search, since they have the core competencies and resources needed to improve upon ITA’s existing technology, which was applauded by travel guru Arthur Frommer back in July and Google was quick to point that endorsement out in the public policy blog post.

While Frommer certainly has a point, most travel technology is reasonably poor – Google is one of the few companies in a decent position to actually fix some of the legacy issues  – but just because they can, doesn’t mean they should.

Meanwhile, the FairSearch coalition unveiled the “Meet Bob” cartoon to show Google’s impact on consumers.

There’s even a creepy-Schmidt reference, in addition to a number of implications this integration could have on advertising revenue.

http://searchengineland.com/ota-coalition-forms-calls-googleita-deal-a-threat-to-consumers-and-competition-53974