Recently SEOMoz published the results of an eye-tracking study done in partnership with Mirametrix.  This study focused on local search results and offers one of the first pieces of definitive data on consumer engagement with local search results across several variations of search engine results pages. The participants were shown a variety of Google landing pages that included universal search results. Of the five search types shown in the study, each one results in a SERP with local business listings that revealed that those local business listings garnered the most consumer focus, regardless of where the business listings were placed on the page—the top or the middle.

A compelling takeaway from the study was the participant’s fixation on the ”map pack” that Google displays in local-intent results. The map pack linked in a search received a lot of eye-tracking, as did the map image on the upper right side of the page.

To learn more about the results of Google’s eye-tracking study and the importance of maintaining your local presence on the SERPS visit GMS Local’s latest blog post: Eye Tracking Study Reveals Importance of Local Listings Management.

You can follow GMS Local on Twitter at: @GMSLOCAL

Research our organization, GroupM Search, published in Q4 found that less than 5 percent of all search visits from shoppers resulted in a visit to a brand website (click here for the full study). The majority of traffic was sent, instead, to third-party review sites, comparison sites, and social platforms. With the growing options for discovery and information gathering beyond a brand site, it is fair (and wise) for brands to question what role an owned website should play.

In fact, the question for 2012 is: “What role should my online brand destinations play in communicating with consumers about my business and when should I send people to each location?” For a business to be successful in 2012, they must have an answer and strategy to act upon the response to that two-part question.

Two studies we conducted in 2011 found that there is a growing number of opportunities for brands to influence the purchase path a consumer will take. We call those opportunities “signposting” moments; a moment in the journey when a consumer reaches a fork in the road and must decide which direction to go next. As recently as 12 to 18 months ago, these moments occurred most frequently on Google’s results page, but the options at hand were largely brand websites. Now, the choices are more extreme with everything from third-party category sites (Wikipedia and comparison shopping), brand sites, video sites (YouTube), and through social media (Facebook, Twitter, and Google+).

The death of 10 blue links has helped diminish the ease of navigation to a brand site. But, choices are good and the options at the disposal of a brand can be an advantage if brands can answer the role question posed at the onset of this column. That said, brands need to determine the following for each type of property:

1. What’s the point of the assets we own? Whether it is your brand website, your Facebook page, your Twitter stream, or YouTube – what is the primary goal of the destination and how do we continue to further develop the asset to satisfy that end goal?

2. What assets can we leverage on which we have an earned presence? With more users relying on third-party sites (category blogs, review sites, etc.) it is essential to be present in those locations. Though a concerted community activation effort or API feeds of data brands cannot afford to miss out on these locations.

3. Where are we placing signposts and are they clearly marked? For most consumers, the online journey starts with Google. Increasingly, Facebook plays a role as does Twitter and YouTube. Each of these “destinations” can be a gateway to another location. So, what directions are you offering to potential consumers to get them down the funnel toward a decision that includes you?

My perspective for brands, and what I told the individuals from the two Fortune 100s previously mentioned, is that in no way should Facebook be a replacement at the start of 2012 for a brand website. It should have a clearly defined role for the brand as should the brand site. If you cannot articulate both the role and the differentiation from other owned properties, then there is a real problem. The moment you have blurred the lines in your own organization to the point that you cannot distinguish roles and differentiation, you are not positioned to take advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead with your targeted consumers.

That’s why, in 2012, there will be nothing more important for brands than to know the roles of their digital assets and how differentiation of each will be communicated to their target consumers. The goal should be to make it easy for any consumer to get to the right destination (owned or otherwise) to experience your brand in the most optimum setting that will in turn progress their own journey to an ideal outcome for your business in this new year.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and was  published in ClickZ, Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2012.  Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.

The eye-popping numbers come largely in the form of two data points. First, 15 percent of all Black Friday searches will be done via mobile devices. Second, for retailers who live or die by the ability to convert large numbers as the days wind down, 44 percent of total searches for last minute gifts and store locators will come from mobile. These numbers align with a year of statistics that clearly show a shift of usage from the desktop to the mobile device, tablets included.

But that’s where things get a little sticky for many advertisers. As recently as February, Google stated that 79 percent of its advertising base did not offer an optimized mobile experience. Unless that number has gone down considerably, that could spell trouble for shoppers who rely on online-exclusive campaigns or use standard sites in place of a true mobile experience. Additionally, for advertisers who do have a proper mobile presence, the tried and true method of throwing paid media dollars at the opportunity may not work as well this time around.

In soon-to-be-released research from my company, studying the influence of search on purchase behavior and the influence that mobile has on shopping decisions were measured. Of importance to these data points from Google was the finding that while one in five shoppers used the mobile device, they almost universally acknowledged having no recall of paid search advertising. With one top of screen listing, the competition will be fierce, especially with Google feeding out these points.

For marketers to make the most of the holiday season, it is important for them to produce a compelling response via an optimized mobile experience, but that optimization must include mobile SEO. So much of what people will seek is tied to ideas and not specific products or store locators; therefore, brands must think about how they will create and optimize those elements for success. The search data from my company suggests that consumers are not only looking for store locators, as supported by the Google data, but also looking for consumer review and store-specific information. Those are two crucial areas that take extra work.

It’s hard to say if it’s too late for some marketers to mobilize mobile in time for the upcoming holiday season. But, for those that don’t, the proverbial stocking full of coal may await.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and was  published in ClickZ, September 13, 2011.  Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.

One newly announced feature designed to do just that is Google Instant Pages. Instant Pages takes the Google Instant feature (launched last year) and moves the concept forward by anticipating the most popular searches and producing cached entry points with no page load delay. Not since Tom Cruise and Anthony Edwards proclaimed their undying need for speed in “Top Gun” has a duo seemed so singularly focused as Larry Page and Sergey Brin are with improving the speed of searching on Google.

Google Instant pages is the latest advancement designed to shorten the amount of time an individual user spends on a single query. There are billions of queries every month on Google, so the idea that a vast majority could be impacted for the faster is a compelling feature for Google and a technological advancement worth trumpeting. The problem is that Google is inexplicably obsessed with the immediate gratification moment of the individual search rather than viewing the lifecycle of a search journey.

Apparently, the way Google feels it can best assist in this manner is to speed up the search process for a user. That is helpful if what I am seeking is of a nature that one query or even one session is enough. But what happens when I need multiple data points from different sources to further my decision? Or when the realities of life, work, family, etc. interfere with my ability to drill into a topic. As I’ve said before, search is an output that comes from a personal desire to either discover new information or to reach a destination in our decision-making process. Either way, search is often a process or journey, and three seconds saved here and there are nothing to dismiss, but it is not what people ultimately will reward with future behavior and usage.

What people want is a search service that enables them to store and accumulate knowledge as they progress through the process. When conducting our latest Search and Social in the Purchase Pathway research, we found that consumers say they use search for pricing and product research. We also found that the average purchase in high consideration categories such as consumer electronics and cellphones had nine to 11 touchpoints between search and social media. This suggests that consumers will repeatedly search and use the channel for refinement as they become more educated.

Our findings also revealed that in the abovementioned categories, it was taking on average two months to reach a final purchase. And that data point is the one that suggests what Google is trying to do with Instant and now Instant Pages are short-term responses when consumers need long-term solutions. What users of search engines need is the ability to catalog their knowledge as they accumulate it. As people move from search to search over the course of weeks, not seconds, the ability to reference what they have found previously and what they clicked on can enable a more fluid and positive experience.

Google Instant Pages further enhance the destination phase of a searching pattern. I want to know the weather or events taking place in London next week and it will help me. But, the discovery phase that exists in an overwhelming majority of searches is still being underserved. Google states that it wants to help avoid the derailing of your train of thought, but it is building the track for the set with a short attention span and need for instant gratification. Enabling the track with a run long enough to serve this multi-step, multi-session journey consumers are taking to a conversion decision would be a truly ground-breaking effort worth speeding up development on for the market.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and published in Instant Insights on ClickZ, Tuesday, June 21, 2011. Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.

People can be summed up based on their natural reaction to the following statement: “It’s not the destination, it’s the journey.”

Read that statement to 10 people and you’ll likely get seven people who nod and wax poetic about the journeys they have taken. Then you’ll get three hearty souls that call shenanigans and boldly proclaim that you can keep your journeys, they’ll enjoy more destinations and outcomes.

And that’s the problem with search – it is neither a good journey nor a satisfactory destination.

In recently-released research from GroupM Search, we identified that in key verticals the average duration for a consumer from initial engagement with search, social media, or a brand site to purchase is close to two months. Over that time people have roughly 10 engagements with those three types of sites before converting. If search is supposed to be making our lives better, it has an odd way of doing it if it means decisions come over a period of 60 days and need close to a dozen interactions.

And that’s the problem with a search engine. It is not a destination engine and it is not a discovery engine.

The problem with Bing, the decision engine, is that it is a decision engine for the masses. Facebook inclusion and broader data sets to analyze from the Yahoo alliance can be considered differentiations in today’s market place, but they fall short. Right now, the data we have shows Bing is at best a second opinion engine for many who are Google first users. The reason is that Bing, at the end of the day, is not doing anything that different with the experience. If Bing, or anyone else, wanted to be a destination engine they would create a truly one-to-one engine that uses your signal base to serve up an Apple Genius experience inside your search. Just because a user expressed explicit intent doesn’t mean that it is being matched in the results. The problem is advertisers are spreading their investments around to the potential of the masses versus the singularity of the person. What’s failing consumers at present is not the advertiser match of content but the ability to operate on a platform that facilitates a bidding scenario based of the expectation that a single connection is going to happen and nothing more will be needed.

In this environment consumers spend exponentially more time inside Bing or another engine versus off-site with the constant click and return to search again behavior. The trade-offs for brands are greater investment and depth of exposure happening off-site in exchange for being hyper targeted with an ability to minimize the touch points. If Microsoft were to take the name of another project, Looking Glass, and use the concept of going down the rabbit hole on site with a heavy dose of personal attention, we might truly have a destination engine for brands and consumers alike.

The counter to a destination mindset is that of the journey and its exploration and discovery. If Malcolm Gladwell is right and it takes 1,000 repetitions to become proficient in your craft, then we need engines that encourage better behavior to allow for an appreciation of the experience of the journey.

The behavior being taught today is one where users learn to search, click, return, and repeat. There’s no feedback loop coming back into the engine in a natural way as to the worth a user found from the previous query and/or click.

Today we see more snippets of rich data being included that is designed to help inform the first click but means nothing to us upon return. An engine that would allow curation and evolve based on our behaviors is what more people want than the current model, I believe. This is about the buying process. We know search is used to find products, prices, deals, and opinions. Yet, to go from start to finish is about forcing an individual to select what looks best after an engine has ranked the sites and then requires personal memory to retain the key elements.

Dream with me of an engine that provides the ability to notate your findings, register the most appealing elements, and further refines itself upon that data – not the standard set of generic content that it believes the masses want to see. If people want to discover and explore, then facilitating that is only as meaningful as the ability to let that information reside beyond their individual brains and use it for a greater good. A true discovery engine takes the implicit (I want to go on vacation) and turns it, via discovery, into an explicit (Le Meridien Paris). The role engines play in getting from A to B can be powerful and helpful because it has the ability to iterate the process so that searching becomes discovering and implicit becomes explicit.

For advertisers, the worth of a word becomes measured by the worth of the person along the path and the models that evolve. Nothing is simple when it comes to discovery and destination, but the alternative that exists today is something people don’t want.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and was  published in ClickZ, April 26, 2011.  Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.

I don’t know Josh Shatkin-Margolis (author of “Search is the Worst Form of Advertising,” AdAge, 4/26/11), but I know his argument. The sales pitch is simple: search is not real advertising, and in his mind, is a small and over-credited piece of the purchase process when compared to a channel of real influence and persuasion, display. Keep in mind Mr. Shatkin-Margolis apparently works at a display media retargeting firm—a business built on the foundation of search and consumer intent. So I’m surprised he’d use such a tired argument to denigrate search to prove his point.

In his article, Mr. Shatkin-Margolis contends search lacks persuasion and is wasted on convincing consumers that they are making the right decision. He also suggests an awkward analogy that you would never credit a checkout clerk for persuading someone to buy Coke over Pepsi.

Yet there are copious amounts of data available proving the role search plays in influencing a purchase decisions. Branded search is more closely associated with in-store product placement than the checkout clerk; and yes, brands often examine sales impact in their overall marketing efforts. And that ignores the impact of generic search and SEO which apparently did not warrant consideration.

In recent research published by GroupM Search, titled The Virtuous Circle – The Role of Search and Social Media in the Purchase Pathway, we found that 86 percent of all consumers found search to be somewhat or very important in their purchase pathway. The research which was designed to explore the impact of two channels together, not push one at the expense of another, also found that more than one-third of all buyers said search helped them decide what brands to buy.

That suggests a decision had to be made by the consumer and search played a role in a significant numbers of instances. Not bad for a channel where Mr. Shatkin-Margolis contends people only spend two percent of their time and do not have the advantage of pretty pictures in the form of graphical ads. Anyone paying attention to the evolution of Rich Ad formats in search could argue the search experience is more robust than ever before.

What bothers me the most is why this is even the basis for an argument in 2011. Mary Meeker, while at Morgan Stanley before moving to Kleiner Perkins, estimated that $50 billion had yet to transition from traditional advertising to digital. Rather than building a case for extending the proven performance of search with retargeting that takes some of the better characteristics into the display environment, Mr. Shatkin-Margolis wants to discuss credit. It is an argument that cross-channel attribution advocates tout – search gets too much credit and display plays a larger role than is recognized.

As a guy who has spent his career squarely in search, I’ve heard this argument time and again. There is no doubt that search is the beneficiary of being the touchdown maker. Likewise, there is absolutely no dispute from this perspective that when aligned with TV, display and every other media type, search works better and the dollars work smarter. Ironically I have never seen a TV buyer suggest search was taking from their pocket and not properly attributing credit back. Yet it is an all too frequent display and search occurrence. And if you think that’s something, wait until we start to see discussion around Facebook/display/search attribution modeling and who really is doing the lifting.

It fascinates me – whenever the display versus search argument is made, it rarely has anything to do with true attribution and shared impact for better performance. Instead, it is a thinly-veiled money grab from what should be the desired partner, not the enemy.

The mentality that to in order advance one sector you have to put down another is not helping the digital industry. Many businesses are being built that use consumer intent and signals combined with data and buying algorithms. Those businesses will truly elevate all sectors of digital without suggesting any one area is so deficient it should be decried to the masses. Every search advertiser should be engaged in search retargeting, just as they should be exploring how to leverage real time auctions, audience based buying and where social media is going to take them.

If you want to make a case for a sound communications strategy built with proper mix models and allocations that complement and maximize investments to reach a more productive ROI, then I’m in. If you want to take your shot at search as a channel in an effort to elevate display advertising as if search is not truly advertising, then you need more data and conviction than this old argument.

To quote Omar Little from HBO’s ‘The Wire,’ “If you come at the King, you better not miss.” Distinguishing your line of business by denigrating search is a bullet fired far from the mark.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and was  published in AdAge, Monday, April 29, 2011.  Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.

Google’s “+1” (pronounced, “plus one”) is a type of social media sharing and recommendation feature released this week by Google to help them improve their website ranking system and improve the relevancy of their search engine results. This is a positive system for highlighting websites that you, as a consumer, think are good or deserve special consideration by your network.  There is no “-1” in this system, although, Google does already have a ‘negative’ endorsement tool in their “Block all domain.com results” function.

Google’s launch of +1 is being broadly compared with the Facebook “Like” button, and it appears to be a similar system.  Indeed, we would suggest that Google is piggy-backing on the simplicity and success of the “Like” button that so many web users are familiar and comfortable with.  The other side of “+1” that is still under development is their website button – a widget, which, as with Facebook’s Like button, can soon be embedded into any page on a website and will allow users to pass their approval – through Google – to others in their Google +1 Network.  Don’t underestimate the value of this part of the equation – if there is one thing that most websites want, it is the #1 rank in Google. If this button can help elevate your website to number one (at least for those in the networks of those who have “+1’d” it), then adoption of the widget is a no-brainer.  This does not negate the need for search engine optimization (SEO) – there is still a baseline that Google (and Bing) need to take to let their algorithms do their work, so an optimized website is always going to help you rank for key terms. But if this widget makes the difference between #5 and #1, then expect to see broad adoption, and quickly.

Why Is Google Doing this?

This move is a fairly natural extension from Google’s existing social search product that has been around for the last couple of years.  It is also designed to help improve search result quality, which has recently been called into question.  Last year, Microsoft’s Bing search engine beat Google to the punch in signing a deal with Facebook to provide them with access to data from Facebook’s ubiquitous social network.  Access to this data meant that Bing was able to – when users were signed in to Facebook – deliver recommendations based on the data from their network that Facebook had cataloged through their Like button system.  While this relationship is an advantage for Bing, there is still concern for Bing that it is using a third party’s data, rather than home-grown data – information Google is now trying to acquire.  Bing does not have the same cache as Google in the hearts, minds and wallets of most marketers, and as such, Microsoft may have missed a trick by resting on the laurels of their relationship with Facebook as their data source.  While Facebook is certainly currently the “industry standard” social network, there would definitely be an opportunity for Bing to leverage its Windows Live network in a similar way to Google’s current +1 proposition; though they have not yet made this move and may suffer for it in the long run.

How Does +1 Work?

When users are logged into their Google Accounts and searching on Google, they will see a “+1” button beside each link – both paid and organic – in the Google results page. The buttons are greyed out until clicked by the user as a sign of their recommendation of a good or relevant website.  Once they have clicked on the link, this recommendation will be shared by Google with the user’s network – so if someone in your “Google +1 Network” (i.e.: Gmail contacts) makes a similar search, then you will see an endorsement for that particular ad or link on your page (assuming you are also signed in to your Google account).  On the paid search side, it is not yet clear how Google will deal with those ads that are both endorsed and have met their daily budget – something of high value to both Google and the networked consumer.  If Google is truly interested in the best user experience, then it seems that they should continue to show the ad, but naturally, there would be outcry from advertisers if their ads were being shown beyond their daily budgets, even if conversions were occurring.

The final, yet-to-be-launched part of this equation is the on-site +1 button that would be placed by webmasters on websites.  This gives consumers the chance to “+1” a website or certain pages, and as such, recommend it to their network as a relevant and recommended website.  If there have been a large number of +1’s outside of your network, then Google may also highlight how many +1’s that specific entry has received as an indicator if it’s relevancy. Also, according to Danny Sullivan from SearchEngineLand.com, anyone registered with Google’s Webmaster Central will be able to see the +1 stats for their organic search listings.

How Google defines your network

According to Search Engine Land, Google’s definition of your network includes Gmail and Google Talk chat lists, people in your contacts list, and people you follow on Google reader or Google Buzz.  We have certainly seen people that have been emailed from Gmail be added to a Google chat list, which means that your network could stretch to a lot of people that you don’t actually know or that you don’t know well enough to determine if you trust their opinions, which could certainly be a flaw in Google’s model.  Time will tell if Google will allow users to link their various social profiles (Facebook, Flicker, LinkedIn, Quora, Twitter, Yelp, etc.) to their Google +1 profiles as they have previously done with their “Google Social Search” profile to help define their social network.

What +1 means for brands

For brands, this will seem like a big change – and a potential threat.  It gives a lot of opportunity for competitors to positively influence their own websites (if not negatively affecting your brand site), but the same could be said for SEO as a whole – it’s an opportunity to improve the relevance and visibility of your website.  There is not yet any clarity on how this change will affect pharmaceutical, financial and other government-regulated industries.

Here are some recommendations for brands as +1 is rolled out:

1.     Generating incremental +1’s may deliver better business results. If so, brands should utilize social media activity and, potentially, incentives to help drive increased +1’s.

2.     Monitor your +1’s in the Google Webmaster tools, along with any resulting traffic trends to identify opportunities or threats to your brand’s properties

3.     Google’s +1 button for placing on your website is not yet released, but in the meantime, brands should consider the pros and cons of adoption, in concert with the Facebook Like button, if not already implemented.

What +1 means for users

The hope is that users will be delivered more relevant results, but from a webmaster’s perspective, it is likely to mean that a new “+1” button will be added to the site, possibly alongside a Facebook Like button, in the hope that it will help to make their online marketing efforts deliver more leads.  Search engines are continuously testing and implementing new ranking signals and result-page layouts to provide the best search results for user queries.  Because of the overwhelming popularity of social platforms that enable users to connect and interact with each other in near real-time, search engines have new signals they are incorporating into their ranking algorithms and new content they are including in their search results.  In this case, Google is looking to create their own data-set to give them more control over the data that will become a large part of their ranking algorithm in the coming months and years.  All of this data is going to come – voluntarily and for free – from Google’s loyal user-base.

The inclusion of social signals into the search algorithms, coupled with the insertion of social content into search results pages, is a natural, but significant evolution in the search landscape.

Stephen Hall is Sr. Partner and Director of Organic Search at GroupM Search. Follow him on Twitter: @SearchBloke

The Wall Street Journal has an extensive write-up on the specifics of the topic in an article titled “Google Wants To Be More Social,” as does the official Google blog.

In launching +1, Google appears to be making a direct challenge to the well-established “Like” functionality of Facebook. The move continues a recent shift in the way Google approaches its own algorithm and rankings, which have come under substantial scrutiny in the past three to four months.

Google product manager Christian Oestlien acknowledged, “Recommendations play a vital role in our decision-making process.” Google supported this with additional statistics that suggest 90% of consumers trust recommendations from people they know, while 71% say reviews from family members or friends influence purchase decisions. These figures align with recent research published by GroupM Search which indicates that more than 50% of all consumers had their perceptions changed about brands based on social influences.

At present, there seems to be three central questions to consider about the broader plan behind such a move by Google. There is also the discussion of what opportunity this presents to marketers.

Q1: Is +1 a real threat to Facebook and the “Like” ecosystem?

The initial reaction in the digital community to Google’s motivation can be summed up in the headline from Danny Sullivan’s Search Engine Land website, “Meet +1: Google’s Answer to the Facebook Like Button.” For the past year, pundits have observed with great interest the potential war to come between Google and Facebook. The present and past internet darlings continue to circle in their efforts to curry both advertising and consumer favor. The launch of +1 would, on the surface, appear to signal yet another effort by Google to make social media part of their DNA.

That theory, however, is limited by the means by which users will come onto +1 listings. There are 600 million Facebook users today, and users have the ability to connect to their graph and expose or find content beyond that graph based on privacy settings. In contrast, in the beginning +1 will only be accessible to people in their Google social circle and eventually to those in other social circles, such as Twitter, Flickr and Quora. Obviously, missing from that list is Facebook. In fact, one could contend that the manifestations of social influence on Bing and engine start-up Blekko already provide much of what Google now has to recreate on its own. To do this, Google has to convince users that there is an altruistic benefit in sharing via +1 what the Like feature has come to signify.

Google is going to lean heavily on the potential upside for brands to gain traction. It is clear that brands have a fairly sizable opportunity if the program takes hold and gains traction – but it remains a big if. The greatest difference in the Like environment of Facebook to the +1 of Google is that liking something has the potential for collaboration beyond the action. If a user likes a page then they can either connect with people of similar interest or start dialogue inside Facebook around a page or other content asset. The model for Google +1 is simply to improve the experience and influence others. That model, in fact, makes this move less about Facebook and more about the next topic – social search and the important of relevance.

Q2: What does this do for Google’s “social search” efforts?

First off, what is social search? Google defines their efforts in this space as the ability to help “you discover relevant content from your social connections, a set of your online friends and contacts.” They rightfully acknowledge that there are times when content from people you know is more beneficial than content from random people, or, specific to Google, their own algorithm, without further direction.

The challenge with this belief is that to truly create a social search experience you must combine two conflicting ideas. Search is the expression of explicit intent, but done anonymously; while social is often an implied intent with public visibility of varying degrees ranging from your closely-defined social graph to the entire web. To make social search a reality, people must remove their anonymity and embrace, via Likes or +1’s, a more open ecosystem than previously established. It remains to be seen if that is truly attainable inside a search environment like Google.

More important in the short term, than what it does in redefining Google as a social platform or a social search company, is what +1 does for Google, the search company. In the past four months Google has been hit from all sides over a decrease in quality rankings. The most vocal of critiques include Coding Horror’s “Trouble in the House of Google” and our own summations on our blog, SearchFuel, as part of the on-going battle between Google and Bing.

Google’s response to criticism was fairly quick with an update known as Panda, designed to eliminate duplicate content and the work of content farms that exist solely to rank well and subsequently profit from the click traffic by selling ads encasing such content. In March, Stephen Hall, GroupM Search Sr. Partner, Director, Organic Search (Twitter: @SearchBloke) penned a summary which explored those changes, titled “Google Changes Algorithm to Clean Up Clutter.”

The reality of the situation was that with more companies honing in on the ranking criteria, which are key to the black box algorithm that makes up Google’s organic listings, there was a downward satisfaction (both perceived and real) with results and overall experience. Google’s +1 is another step towards improvement. Google can now take click data associated with listings and pair it with positive signals coming directly from consumers in the active +1’ing of a page to improve rankings. Likewise, the ability to alter rankings at a very personal level based on a user being signed in and exposed to both random and personal associates in their social graph will shift perception.

In this way, we may see the most meaningful short-term benefit to Google. A direct and potentially significant shift towards a social signal factored into its own algorithm of relevancy. Google will be making the +1 icon available for brands to deploy across web properties, and in this regard, it behooves brands to stimulate engagement with the icon.

In a separate piece associated with this POV, we explore the search engine optimization (SEO) implications for brands, and why, whether they want to or not, the potential upside or risk for utilizing the +1 feature will be a key shift in a brand’s SEO strategy moving forward.

Q3: Is this a game-changing innovation or more of the same?

“Historically, Google has struggled to get the social play right. From YouTube to Orkut to Knol, Google has swung for the fences or come late to the game, and has failed to deliver to outside expectations – either as a true social platform or financially to market expectations.”

That paragraph comes from a piece we published in Fall 2009 describing a new product innovation called SideWiki. It would not be surprising if you’ve never heard of SideWiki, as it failed to live up to expectations as an extension into a social context for Google. That innovation predates Google Buzz, Wave, and most recently, HotPot, which to-date have all failed to live up to any form of measurable traction in the social space.

So, what’s the likelihood for success with +1? This is a development that all brands engaged in SEO will have to wrestle with. It will require implementation, but could have a meaningful upside. If brands push the feature forward, then consumers may adapt and adopt. The challenge is going to be the public’s willingness to self-create and utilize a second social network. You must sign up and be logged into your Google Profile to use the +1 system. You can see aggregated +1 data without being logged in, but to take the action of +1-ing a page, you must have a profile. Further, to see personalized +1 results, you must be signed in to your Google account with or without having a Profile.

Whether you consider this enhancement gaming changing probably requires a definition of what game it is changing. If the game is true threat to the Like ecosystem and the Facebook social platform’s stronghold, then scale must be attained – and that does not play to a historically strong area for Google.

However, if the game is improve search experiences through new signals which incorporate user responses post-click, then the game may be changing for the better. It is much easier to envision an enhanced search experience with less noise and more signal through this feature without substantial individual adoption. There are billions of searches done monthly and more than 30% of the queries done on Google result in no click whatsoever. Any enhancement to the experience through better insights will produce greater engagement and help fend off the challenges coming from Bing and others around the world.

What should marketers be doing to position themselves for potential gains?

As is customary when discussing search, implications must be explored in terms of paid and organic opportunities. As this appears to have measurable influence on the signals coming into Google via the +1 function and the likelihood of a reordering of sites as a result, we have developed a second POV on the topic addressing SEO implications.

As we explore the implications for paid search, here are a few key takeaways:

• All ads will default to having the +1 on the listing. Expectations, and early beta testing, suggest that ads with +1’s will see improved click-through rate (CTR). It will be important for brand marketers to understand where users are likely to interact with the +1 icon.
• It feels highly unnatural that someone would click the +1 icon on the SERP before actually visiting the site being advertised. Nor would they be apt to click +1 if they have to come back to the SERP to do so. Once again this puts the onus on a brand to make the +1 icon available on entry points and throughout their site. Bear in mind that people are not “liking” brands here, they are putting their stamp on a specific page.
• The scale of +1 for ads will be important. If people are not registered and/or signed in to their Google account, what they will see is a cumulative number of +1 clicks. This may start to have an impact on overall rankings, CPCs required to remain in desired position, and user perception of where to start. If Site A is in 3rd position but has 30 +1’s, while Site B is first position and only shows 5 +1’s, then it may become common place for the first click to be less tied to position and more to influence. That remains to be seen, but it is now a new, non-traditional factor for search marketers and brand owners to consider as they develop tactical plans in the space.

Conclusion

As with most new product and innovation launches from Google, the questions outnumber the answers in the early days.  If your brand has already embraced social media tagging via Like buttons or other, then it is appropriate to begin a conversation on the requirements to place +1 icons around your site.

If your brand has not done this previously, then the conversation right now should center around the SEO implications as a starting point, and an assessment can be made specific to your brand and category as to the potential reward versus risk, depending on whether +1 becomes a part of the site or not.

Our expectation is that the on-site availability will determine the true reach and influence of the+1 program. Therefore, brands are going to have to monitor the shifts other companies are making as well to determine proper future developments.

Chris Copeland is CEO of GroupM Search. Follow him on Twitter: @SearchBoss

Google has made various forays into the social world with some more successful (in Brazil anyway) than others.  However, it is clear that through their Profiles pages, and their less invasive tactics like the Google Places pages, that gathering social data from its users is high on Google’s list of things to do.

Enter the +1.  Nicely non-invasive and with the ability to help guide search results both from a direct (on the SERP) and indirect (on the website) point of view.  It’s simple, in tradition with Facebook’s “Like” button; and for now, it’s positive — there is no “-1” button…yet. But but the choice of a number makes this nicely scalable for Google, should they choose to make this a sliding scale.  As I mentioned in my previous post, Microsoft is well positioned to do something similar with their Windows Live service, and I really hope they do. Incorporating both the WinLive and Facebook networks for social data seemingly would deliver more targeted and insightful results, as well as protect Bing against any future changes to the Facebook relationship.  (For full disclosure: Microsoft is a client I work on.)

Time will tell how adoption for Google’s +1 system works out.  They’ve made a great move in making it simple for users and it lives in a format users are familiar with. Also, because they’re Google, webmasters will be likely to adopt their on-page system to help their websites rank too.  Google’s +1 will likely end up being a good source of data for Google, and, in time, could help level their field  with Bing’s Facebook partnership.

While it’s certainly nice to pick up the traffic boost from another site’s link, there is an added bonus.  Search engines use links as a signal when trying to rank websites.  Links are treated as votes, and the more powerful and relevant the linking site is, the more value passed to your website. The theory being that the more relevant and popular links a website acquires, the better resource the site is likely to be.  That being said, sites with the most links don’t always rank first. Quality is very important, as well as the anchor text (the words used in the link). Links from powerful websites, with anchor text that contain targeted keywords, can be extremely helpful when trying to rank for those keywords in a search engine. These links occur naturally if content is compelling and interesting, but some site owners engage in questionable tactics to encourage other websites to link to them – such as buying links – in an attempt to build their link profile.

In the wake of some large, well-known brands being given penalties due to manipulative link building techniques, many website owners have been left wondering the appropriate method to acquire links in the eyes of the search engines. The search engines are vague in how they define link schemes, and are even less clear and inconsistent as to how they penalize sites for undesirable linking behavior.  For example, links acquired to manipulate page rank within Google’s ranking system are against Google’s terms of service and may cause a penalty.

Google Webmaster Guidelines state:

“…some webmasters engage in link exchange schemes and build partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. This is in violation of Google’s Webmaster Guidelines and can negatively impact your site’s ranking in search results. Examples of link schemes can include:
Links intended to manipulate PageRank

• Links to web spammers or bad neighborhoods on the web
• Excessive reciprocal links or excessive link exchanging (“Link to me and I’ll link to you.”)
• Buying or selling links that pass PageRank”

This doesn’t mean that all links that are non-editorial are an attempt to manipulate PageRank – there may be a good business reason for you linking or requesting a link from another complimentary website – but where does Google draw the line?  The question to ask is how it affects the user, as that is the audience that the search engines are ultimately trying to please.

Some good rules to follow:

• The best way to get other sites to link to yours is to create unique, relevant content that is compelling and other users want to share
• Links purchased for advertising should be designated as such. This can be done in several ways, such as:
  • Adding a rel=”nofollow” attribute to the <a> tag
  • Redirecting the links to an intermediate page that is blocked from search engines with a robots.txt file
• Avoid link exchanges or reciprocal links, unless it’s valuable to your users
• Directories don’t typically pass much PageRank, but relevant topical directories may be helpful
  • Avoid paying for vast numbers of directory listings
• Avoid anything automated in terms of building link
• Avoiding page duplication, 302 redirects, JavaScript redirects and Meta refresh redirects as they stop the flow of equity passed by links
• Leveraging existing links, mentions and partnerships is an easy and clean way to build your link profile

Google and Bing are both trying to deliver the most relevant results that they can to users. As previously mentioned, the best way to get other sites to create links to yours is to create unique, relevant content that other users in the Internet community see value in and want to link to.  It’s very important to use “clean” tactics to build a link profile and to add diversity, without triggering Google or Bing’s SPAM filters.

The value of links varies depending on where it comes from and often how it is achieved, but there is one good link that we want even more than others: that link from the #1 spot in the search engines.