Changes to Underlying Architecture Impact Universal Search Results

Transcription

1

2 The Changing Face of the SERPs: 8 out of 10 High Volume Keywords Now Have Universal Search Results If you listen closely you can almost hear the old-time Search Marketer saying In my day we didn t have any of this digital search result business! We optimized our pages, built our links and shot up the search rankings! But the good old days of search marketing are gone. The legendary ten blue links are a thing of the past. With the launch of universal search in 2007, digital assets began to permeate the search results and results such as video, news and shopping began to appear in the SERPs. As we ll soon see, the natural search results would never be the same. Changes to Underlying Architecture Impact Universal Search Results When Google launched universal search results in 2007 the changes were not merely cosmetic: the underlying method for classifying queries changed. Before: The algorithm classified the search request and queried the vertical engines (news, video ) it believed would have results. The result was that universal results were not discovered and presented in many instances they were available. After: The algorithm queries the vertical engines for all queries, classifies the results by relevancy and then displays the results. This change in underlying architecture means universal search results are likely to appear for far more queries and more completely for others. Vertical Engines W- Web N-News I- Images V- Video B-Books Source: David Bailey, Technical Lead, Universal Search, Google

3 The Universal SERPS Continue to Evolve Although universal search first rolled out in 2007, Google continues to evolve the search results. Between 2007 and 2011, Google adding shopping, and local results, added then removed Twitter and most recently, added +1 s to the SERPs. The key takeaway for search marketers from this continuous evolution is, if history is any indicator, the SERPs are on a steady march from traditional search rankings (the 10 blue links paradigm) to becoming a multimedia blend of digital and traditional search results. Search marketers must be prepared to meet this new paradigm head-on and have a plan to rank for both traditional and digital results. The evolution of the SERPs becomes even more evident when we place the SERP for the query iphone in 2007 side by side with the one from In 2007, the classic ten blue links ruled the day, while in 2011, the SERPs are a collection of traditional and digital links including news, images, video and shopping.

4 SERP for iphone 2007 to Today News Images Video Shopping So the SERPs have changed dramatically in becoming increasingly digital since yet Marketers are still attacking search marketing like it s 2007 by focusing disproportionately on traditional search results. The opportunity cost associated with ignoring universal search results is apparent when we black out universal results in the 2011 SERP in the image below. The conclusion: Marketers are conceding significant real estate to competitors when not optimizing digital assets for universal search.

5 SEOS

6 Just How Concerned With Universal Search Results Should Search Marketers Be? Just how pervasive have universal results become for high volume keywords? Conductor set out to gauge the extent of the SERPs evolution with the goal of answering the following key questions: How frequently are universal search results appearing for high-volume queries? For queries with universal results, what is the distribution of result types? To answer these questions, we analyzed the SERP makeup of more than 4,200 of the most expensive Paid keywords from a variety of industries. The natural search makeup of the keywords are presumed to be of interest to advertisers because they are investing significant dollars in them in PPC. 8 Out of 10 Keywords Have Universal Results of Some Kind Conductor s analysis showed that 81% of keywords analyzed have universal search results of some kind. The results show that, at least as far as high-volume keywords are concerned, universal search results have become the new norm. Looking at a distribution of the kinds of universal results that appear for our keyword set: There is a wide distribution of universal result types; we do not see a significant skew toward one or two particular universal result types

7 News appeared most often, followed by shopping results Local result types (Local and Maps) appeared 14% and 12% of the time although this number can increase significantly as Marketers focus on geocentric queries (our study focused on a mix of geo and non-geo terms) Technology Gives Insight into the New SERPs With the steady march of digital assets into the natural search results, technology has stepped in and filled the visibility gap. The SEO platform provides insight into the digital makeup of the SERPs on the keyword level, helping marketers to understand the exact makeup of the SERPs for their keywords: Aggregate Visibility: The SEO Platform provides insight into the distribution of universal search results across the entire keyword set. This kind of insight can be helpful in determining organization level areas of focus when considering holistic search visibility. Keyword Level Visibility: Gain insight into the universal search makeup on a keyword by keyword basis. True Visibility: Gain insight into the true visibility of keywords with true vs. classic rank (rank that takes universal results into account vs. rank that does not). Pixel Position gives Marketers the actual on-page pixel position of their page on the universal SERP.

8 Universal results on an aggregate keyword level Filter by universal result type See classic rank vs true rank Universal results on keyword level See actual pixel location on page Key Takeaways: To recap our findings: 1. The SERPs are now a blend of digital and traditional search results; 8 out of 10 keywords analyzed have universal results of some kind. 2. Technology gives unprecedented insight into the SERP makeup on an aggregate and keyword by keyword basis. The implications of these findings impact search marketers from a strategy, tactical and organizational perspective: Strategy: As enterprise marketers scale their keywords into the hundreds and thousands, they cannot optimize for every digital asset type for every keyword. Marketers must leverage technology in order to be strategic about allocating time and resources to digital asset optimization where it will have the greatest impact. Tactical: While it may seem self-evident, for many marketers it is not yet common practice to optimize for digital assets along with traditional search rankings. The opportunity cost is too great--there is too much real estate devoted to digital assets for marketers to continue to ignore universal result types and they must seize the opportunity as they can bet their competition is. Organizational: Just as marketers should not be attacking the SERPS in 2011 the same way they did in 2007 the organizational approach to search should not be the same today as it historically been. Search now involves more organizationally than just Marketing. Social, PR, Video and Tech teams should all be involved

9 in SEO and understand how to contribute to search visibility in their particular spheres.