The Drum Awards for Marketing - Extended Deadline

-d -h -min -sec

Google Ispy Twitter

Why Google might end up paying for lack of tact as rivals like Blekko emerge

Author

By The Drum Team, Editorial

February 8, 2011 | 5 min read

Digital marketing continues to develop, with search becoming an increasingly powerful tool for all brands to master, but many still struggle. Andy Siviter, I Spy’s Head of Northern Operation considers why.

As digital marketing evolves, it’s wise to investigate the new meaning of search and ask how Google will develop in the field’s ever-changing climate. With digital marketing driving success more than ever, it’s important to find out why built sites with compelling content are still not driving the algorithm.

Blekko has risen from nothing to averaging 1 million queries per day in just three months since its launch. The emergence of alternative search engines such as Blekko may not have Google quaking in their boots but it does highlight a shift in attitudes. Resentment towards huge brands is nothing new and there are growing rumbles of discontent from sections of the natural search community as the values of the organisation have been lost in a succession of unfortunate events, culminating in the trap door for CEO Eric Schmidt. I want to focus on the core search product though, more specifically the perceived threat posed to it by spam.

Google argue spam is not a growing problem, more that as victims of their own success, it receives more intense scrutiny than ever before. For so long Google have relied on the existing model that has served them so well and for just as long people have been cheating that system. Don’t get me wrong, Google delivers great results no question. I am just interested to see how they evolve in the face of greater alternatives and I wonder if something more fundamental will change.

It seems to me that some in the industry have lost sight of the meaning of search. It should deliver the most relevant result to the user and it is not, and cannot be, a paid for auction format. The community has, rightly or not, called out a succession of changes it deems to be geared towards further monetisation of paid search and other products at the expense of relevancy. Let’s not forget that adwords advertisers to a large degree choose when they appear according to the deepness of their pockets; totally at odds with the concept of neutrality. Paid-for links are much the same. These days every move Google makes is perceived with such intense suspicion one can only assume Schmidt has paid the price for a lack of tact above all else.

I see so many natural search agencies who have lost the plot. Many using ugly paid-for links and quantity based submissions at the forefront of strategies driven by fear of keeping pace with the Joneses. Yes, I am naive, but it feels to me that this culture gives too much power to Google. I think that well-built sites with compelling content should be driving the algorithm and not the other way around. Of course, I understand the need to play the game as well but I think too many agencies talk about the long-term view and do the exact opposite.

Those who use these short-sighted strategies at the expense of genuine content are totally at the mercy of Google. Imagine the effect of a simple but fundamental change to the algorithm affecting the way link value is distributed.

Businesses have been investing so heavily in this – does that all go up in smoke? Okay it’s a bit dramatic, but indulge me. Google recently admitted they have discussed distributing the power to blacklist domains and this gives us some insight into the agenda on the top table. I recently bought something from a site below the fold because the site was ‘liked by Joe Bloggs, John Smith, and six others’. I didn’t check, nor did I care, that the site linked to 1500 PR5 sites.

Blekko is interesting in areas that perfectly exploit the perceived deficiencies of Google. The concept of slashtag searches adds a totally new dimension that could fundamentally change search behaviour. Now you can decide what you don’t want to see in your results as well as what you do. It’s like search 3D and I can’t wait to see how it develops.

The approach to spam is just as interesting. The ability for each user to blacklist sites as spam means decisions that should be made by humans are made by humans. It also creates a level of ongoing customisation and evolution that hasn’t been possible before in search.

Let’s not forget the growing contribution of other search engines too and the need to factor them into our efforts. The only way to future proof your strategy is to focus on creating well-structured sites with great content and authority. Algorithms are built to do a job that isn’t humanly possible due to sheer scale; if you develop your site based on human needs then surely we can just wait for the Search Engines to catch up? It’s a purist view and represents the biggest fundamental challenge for agencies when clients want results yesterday. The right strategy for now falls somewhere in between but make sure your agency has the foresight and passion to continually challenge the current strategy.

Google Ispy Twitter

More from Google

View all

Trending

Industry insights

View all
Add your own content +