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.

There, I said it. And I know I’m not alone. By nature, as an anti-social individual who will spear you with a cart while listening to “Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer” on my iPod as I shop, I am clearly in the minority. In fact, short of bridal parties in Vegas, there is likely no bigger celebration of sisterhood than Black Friday. Every year the teams of women wearing matching Black Friday t-shirts and saving spots in line for each other while doing their deal hunting grows; missioning the likes of which tribes have taught their young for centuries.

Black Friday Is the Original Social Shopping Experience

Retailers keep store hours based on consumer demand. Black Friday shoppers use basic survival instincts of herd mentality to secure the best deals, while fostering a sense of togetherness and community for the last decade plus. And now, Cyber Monday and mobile technologies further change the patterns of these shoppers.

This year, Black Friday comes early. Many more retailers including Macy’s and Old Navy have moved their store openings to midnight. Walmart will join the group of retailers that can’t wait and will open on Thursday. The shift to turn Thanksgiving into a commercial holiday (a redundant statement if ever one could be made in this country) has been met with ample backlash. Nearly 200,000 individuals have signed an online protest to pressure retailers into keeping the gluttony at the dinner table and not the checkout lane. And while it is certainly the right of the public to protest, and even boycott, it is probably done without an awareness of what Black Friday is for most people.

This move to more hours is reactive to consumer demand, yet is also preemptive to the challenges of control lost by in-store retail. Retailers are fighting a sluggish economy, new forms of distribution via the Internet, which makes it easier to get products from previously unknown sources, and the realities that in-store retail is growing annually at less than half the rate of online.

Unfortunately, for most retailers, the shift in store hours is not enough. Today’s digital-savvy shopper is aware that discounts can be had online, and rarely is the in-store deal alone enough. As a single shopper, I expect better mobile and social experiences. I see Black Friday as the single biggest day in the history of Foursquare. The viability and value to the masses will be set this Friday. For retailers, the ability to connect with individuals in the store with fresh, relevant deals is a differentiator worth watching.

Retailers must also cultivate a culture of social shopping that goes beyond a group with circulars in hand. Group-buying signals, such as in-store community trending of “What’s Hot” and flash discounts available via mobile devices will further transform and condition the buyers.

It’s unlikely that any petition of boycott will have enough impact to stem the tide of Black Friday’s move to Thursday. What may ultimately return Black Friday to Friday is the way retailers evolve online and bring social shopping 2.0 to bear. If retailers continue to rely on print circulars and downloadable store maps, they fail to recognize the ongoing evolution of the customer. Annually, groups of women in matching hot pink “I survived Black Friday” t-shirts go out to celebrate and shop. Retailers need to cater to this group and use the tools of today to move this old-school social shopping experience forward to social shopping 2.0.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and was  published in ClickZ, November 23, 2011.  Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.

Before I delve into the abovementioned, a little history lesson on the search wars between Google and Microsoft is necessary to best illustrate the path I believe Google should take. In the latter part of the last decade, before Bing branding and a Yahoo alliance was forged, Microsoft made a strategic decision to try and move its appeal into a rabbit hole that Google could never go down. The move? Microsoft introduced Cashback, a program designed to reward users for purchasing from Microsoft’s search engine by rebating a variable percentage based on the merchant and product being obtained. Microsoft underwrote a substantial amount of the program and ultimately determined it to be an unsustainable model. So while Microsoft was correct that Google would not follow, it was proven wrong in its views on the possibility of marketshare growth from the exercise.

That brings us back to Facebook and Google (and the threat it poses). At this year’s f8, Facebook introduced radical advancements in the core wall experience with Timeline, important shifts in the “serendipitous” connects made between users using verbs, and expanded the canvas for advertisers accessible through Sponsored Stories. In these moves, Facebook further aligned its own future success with the advertising community, at least financially. Little has been developed to suggest Facebook is going to suddenly improve as a customer acquisition utility versus the retention and loyalty success Facebook is today. This is where Google has the opportunity to strike.

In its early days, Google intentionally avoided taking advertising on any search results pages, a practice it upheld for several years. The founders believed it inappropriate for the user experience connection they were trying to foster. Now, with an empire that includes leadership or near top of category positioning in search, display, and mobile, one could argue that the presence of brand advertising inside Google+ is equally unnecessary at this time.

While Facebook continues to cozy up to brands and encourage the ability to tell stories to an enormous audience, the proposition from Google+ is clearly different for brands in that their opportunities to target and advertise may come from everywhere but Google+. As a marketer, I crave the ability to engage with consumers in natural conversation, to bring to the dialogue content and relevancy to match their intent – be it for discovery or to reach a destination. But that has never been a prerequisite for Google. In fact, there are many signals that suggest Google would prefer a world less-burdened by advertising obligations.

With yesterday’s announcement of Google+ Pages, it’s impossible to now imagine a Google+ without brands. In fact, the starts and stops of user growth on Google+ now suggests that building the platform itself will only get so many to come. Now, Google finds itself needing brands to add consistent and relevant content to drive more widespread adoption.

That said, I believe that a Google+ free of brand advertising inside the platform in exchange for user data usage across all other properties would be a highly valuable transaction for all parties involved. The result – Google gains what drives its engine, user data, and users gain the equivalent of commercial-free programming. Brands are responsible for creating unique content opportunities and sharing environments without directly soliciting inside the space. That would happen elsewhere across the Google network.

If Google+ wants to surpass Facebook and its 500 million daily users, it has to provide a completely different experience. One way to do that would be to amplify the value of consumer control. It would not only distinguish the platform, but it would also put the interjection of Sponsored Stories and Promoted Tweets into conversations on tilt by a Google+ world free from noise that consumers generally wish to avoid while playing up relevancy to match consumer intent, a Google trademark.

Given that Google has gone to market with +Pages, there are two options left. Pretend that Monday never happened and kick brands off. It has already done it once without fatal results, so it’s not impossible – yet, certainly unlikely. Or, the other option is to turn +Pages into a non-marketing-specific vehicle. Allowing brands to be creators and curators of content while requiring the connections and investments to stay outside the realm of Google+.

Google has to provide a “+” to users, and brands will do that through content. Creating a world less beholden to brand paid media, in exchange for a data gold mine, might just be the way to attract users and distract Facebook in the battles to come.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and was  published in ClickZ, November 8, 2011.  Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.

100 days after kicking off brands who jumped on the Google+ bandwagon at launch, Google has rolled out Google+ Pages, re-opening the door for businesses to move onto their social network platform. At first glance, Google+ may appear to some as just another social network.  However, Google+ represents a different type of social platform and carries greater meaning for a brand’s potential across the entire Google network. It has been placed at the center of all Google initiatives and, as such, the strategy necessary for success is unique – but critical – for brands.

In recent months, GroupM Search CEO Chris Copeland sat down with Google’s product and social execs, including Vic Gundotra, Bradley Horowitz and Christian Oestlien, to discuss the company’s vision for Google+. Drawing from these conversations and identifying the significance and potential for brands long-term via Google+ Pages, Copeland has developed keen perspective on the platform itself, why strategy is critical for brands, and important actions brands and marketers can take today to set course for success on Google+ and across the Google network.

Read more about these insights in the GroupM white paper shared below. If you want to chat more about it with Chris, follow him on Twitter at @SearchBoss.

Google Launches Google+ Pages for Businesses: Insight from GroupM Into Why A Google +Pages Strategy Is Crit…

Think about that for a second. Google, the company that built a better algorithm, suggests that it was not really about the algorithm, but all about the data. Not just data as an abstract singular item, but a scale of data that has been unmatched in the space. When Bing and Yahoo formed their alliance, it was heralded by the companies as a crucial step in being able to combine data for greater intelligence. A few weeks ago, I sat with a leading local deal company and they shared statistics on the scale at which they were operating. The scale described alone is reason enough for the company to be a credible player. The size of user base and the subsequent data flow being produced will enable serious innovation opportunities.

In this business, you quickly learn that scale opens doors and, without it, you are just posturing and faking it until you either acquire scale or fade away. It is the difference between what Facebook is and what MySpace became. At some point, you either have it or you do not. And, without a doubt, Google has it.

Google has had it for a decade in search. It gained it in display with the acquisition of DoubleClick. It built it post acquisition with Android in the mobile space, and is now going after it in social with Google+. The single greatest difference between Google and every other contender at present is that its scale crosses human behaviors. Apple has access to enormous insight via its devices. Facebook and Twitter have it through the social sharing they enable, while Microsoft has it in the console market via Xbox. But none of those companies have woven the thread across consumer behaviors like Google.

Apple does not have enough market in the PC marketplace to match the iPhone and iPad markets. Facebook has curiously opted out of search. And, while display plus social will be important, it may not be enough without device presence. Microsoft bought its way into search, did something similar with Kinect along with Xbox, and has a poor mobile track record going at present. By contrast, Google’s track record with creating the kind of scale needed to turn data into revenue is largely positive.

When Justin Timberlake portrayed Sean Parker in “The Social Network” and famously suggested that $1 million was not enough and that $1 billion was cool, it was simply another way to precisely say what Peter Norvig said. Google wins and controls the ecosystem because it has the largest repository of data. Google+ is a genuine attempt at a social network. But, make no mistake, the data generated from not only your personal Google+ data, but also the shared social graphing of the +1 buttons on sites is what will ring the register for Google revenues.

When congressional leaders examine the monopolistic tendencies of Google, the question they ultimately examine is whether the scale of Google’s presence eliminates the opportunity for entry into the market. If they are to find against Google, it may very well be because the scale of data is what they deem to be unattainable by others.

There has never been a company that monetized insights better than Google. Every action has a value proposition to multiply brands. But, more importantly, it produces data points for Google itself. And that’s why the company that built the better algorithm can now trade on the data machine it spawned.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and was  published in ClickZ, October 11, 2011.  Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.

In a meeting with Google’s head of social media, Vic Gundotra, and Bradley Horowitz, their head of product management for social, I realized the ambition for Google+ is nothing short of spectacular. The long-range plan is smart and fully obtainable from a technology perspective. It could well redefine the company everyone thinks they know. If Google+ is going to fail, it won’t be because the vision isn’t big enough for the market.

That said, I’m stunned by Google’s reminders in recent weeks that the product was not even to the beta stage. It’s as if Google was shocked by the early success and not ready to release Google+ into the world, without limitations. (This despite the numbers: 25 million reported users in the first 30 days and 40,000 businesses signing up for +Business access before the launch of that product extension.) Yet, Google realizes what they are doing and how it has to be positioned in order to succeed.

And here, the Google+ conundrum enters the picture.

At a Google event in early September, Christian Oestlein, the company’s head product manager for social advertising, stated that to Google, social is “a core human behavior, not a platform,” thus putting Google+ still in the direct line of competition with Facebook in the battle for digital supremacy.

The reality is there is no success guaranteed to Google just because their name is before the plus symbol — not when your competition has 750 million users globally and a firmly entrenched position with brands anxious to alter their communications strategy to become more social.

As the product reached its 90-day mark of the field test and as stories emerged about Google+ becoming “a ghost town,” Google announced new features and beta status. The timing was curious; Facebook’s F8 event introducing timelines completely overshadowed the Google+ stories. However, if Google is building for the long-term, it doesn’t matter what either company does short term.

The timing of the Google+ announcement makes sense if for no other reason than they were starting to be doubted. They developed a quick fan boy culture that liked an alternative to Facebook. The risks of further alienating early adopters through lack of features or other users was not something they could afford, given Google+ is the company’s third attempt to try and makes social a part of their world.

It is clear Google is building for the long-term with Google+. With 40% growth reported in Google+ sign-ups, now nearing between 45 million to 50 million users since moving to open sign-up status. Google is going to have a shot in this space.

Facebook may be mimicking some of the innovations of Google+, but it seems unlikely they will replicate in full. Facebook has a method to its madness as is are not going to jump the tracks over a start-up effort, even from Google.

What Google must do now is to make itsown culture mirror the “social as core human behavior” and be more transparent and public about what is to come. If social is a core human behavior, then Google’s ultra-secretive product launches, infinite beta statuses and general black box approach to search algorithm must be retired.

Whatever is driving people to Google+, it is working. Now Google, the company, must enable more of it by embodying Google+, the social network.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and was  published on MediaPost, October 4, 2011.  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.

Debt ceiling debates, S&P downgrades of U.S. credit ratings, wild swings in stock market levels and a global economic crisis drifting back towards recessionary conditions. The last month has been nothing short of a seat belt-necessary roller coaster of a ride. And with continued European instability, debt panel negotiations and waning consumer confidence, one cannot be certain if the tunnel light is that of daylight or an oncoming train ready to crash into the struggling global markets.

That said, the intensive activity and consumer interest have created a unique opportunity in the biddable marketplaces online, specifically in the search markets. With any event, whether it’s entertainment, sporting or political in nature, there is bound to be increased query activity as users search out the topics of interest. Unlike entertainment-type activities where plans can be made and budgets can be allocated in advance, these economic market shifts create opportunities that advertisers still seem unable to act upon.

August 2011 proved to be the tenth most volatile month in the past 75 years, whereas the Dow Jones industrial average swung an average of 1.9% each day of the month. Research by GroupM Search in recent weeks shows a substantial increase in search query volume and advertiser visibility when the stock market takes a hit. In the days around the 4% stock market dip across the major indexes on August 4, searches for the Dow and S&P 500 increased by 231% per Google Insight for search data. Not surprising as everyone watched their net worth plummet then yo-yo off those lows to their current resting place. But what happened next is a cautionary tale for large advertisers and an opportunity for other advertisers if buying habits do not change.

In a normal search buying cycle an advertiser has months of historical data by which to set their bid strategy, including their daily budgets. When crisis hits, the spike in queries means excess opportunity which is desirable unless the crisis appears to have massive financial implications for your brand – just as stock market volatility has proven to have for the finance category. In a situation like this, the excess queries mean budgets are spread thinner and what may have been 100% share of opportunity coverage suddenly becomes a lot less. With less coverage, gaps are created for smaller advertisers – those with poorer quality scores or lower max bids – to enter the mix.

In the two weeks of stock market volatility and heightened debt ceiling chatter in early August, a combination of increased queries and fixed budgets from the primary advertisers led to a substantial increase in appearance of a secondary tier of advertisers. On average, there were 70 unique advertisers who found their way onto the front page of Google for core financial terms – an opportunity that didn’t exist prior to the market decline.

Weeks later, as the Dow Jones industrial average and S&P 500 index dipped again on August 18, our research revealed a strong and statistically significant correlation between total stock price change on a given day against their Google index for search volume. Since the first market drop, the average number of search advertisers to-date remains stable and high, having peaked again during the second market dip in the back half of the month.

What does this mean if you’re a brand in the finance sector – or for any advertiser at large? If you are a brand that struggles to crack through the green ceiling of well-funded major advertisers, a crisis or noteworthy topic capturing widespread attention such as this is a rare opportunity to gain exposure on key terms, even if it comes at the bottom of the page. If you are an advertiser whose first reaction is to hold the line, or worse, cut spending, then you must do so with the knowledge that consumers don’t stop when things go bad. As seen during other events of significance or widespread news, they flock, en masse to the web, and will seek out the brands willing to share valuable content.

If you are a big brand, you cannot run from search, ever. You must double down because the opportunity to get your message into the hands of people who find it relevant is even greater in these moments. If you have struggled to crack the first page of a Google search engine results page, then these opportunities are gift horses to be ridden, not stared at, and you should be prepared. Consumers have an unending need for more information. Moments like these show which brands understand the true power of relevancy in search.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and was  published on Musings from GroupM at MediaBizzBloggers.com, September 13, 2011.  Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss

Carol Bartz is finally out at Yahoo. Gone as well are investor and industry confidence, and nowhere to be seen is the $30+ share price offer for acquisition that Microsoft once made. The Bartz legacy will likely be summed up in the phrase “couldn’t articulate a vision.” That early postmortem comes despite the fact that what Yahoo got from Bartz would appear to be precisely what they hired her to give them. From day one to her final email, Bartz was a straight-shooting, organization-tightening leader with a history of success in the Valley.

The problem is Yahoo is less about the Valley and more about Madison Avenue and Main Street than any other major player in the space.

So, while bets are being placed on the next leader of Yahoo, it seems that Yahoo’s board of directors must first reconcile what exactly a post Yang, Semel, Yang, Bartz really is. We know what it is not, a search engine. Bartz from day one went to great lengths to distance Yahoo from comparison with Google, and on that front one must declare her efforts a success. No one today would confuse what Yahoo has become with Google.

The efforts made over the past two years to publicly convince users, the street and advertisers that Yahoo was a representation of YOU and that its future was in premium display has been upended for any number of reasons. From multiple reorganizations that changed the legacy of an industry by defining sales culture to an identity crisis caused by forsaking the origins of the original tech company and search leaders, the talent drain and vision loss has been significant.

Before wagers are placed on potential successors to lead the battle cry of “YAHOO!”, the question to be addressed is: Yahoo? Is it still the world’s homepage? The numbers suggest Facebook and/or Google have a more legitimate claim to being the true owners of that doorway. Each certainly has found ways to monetize engagement both at scale and by influence better than Yahoo. There’s little debate over the quality and depth in many key verticals (news, finance, sports), but what does that make them?

If not a search company and not a scale play that can monetize as effectively (the same problem that led to the still questionable Yahoo-Bing alliance), then where does Yahoo go from here? There’s an “easy” answer and it’s sitting 850 miles north of Yahoo headquarters. That, of course, is where Microsoft sits today, and for far less than what was offered a few years ago, Microsoft can finally cement their position as a player in the digital age. That’s not to say a Yahoo acquisition is right for Microsoft — but it’s a viable end game for Yahoo.

But let’s say Yahoo wants someone who can lead them to prosperity as a stand-alone. It was what they hoped for when Jerry Yang returned to the chair and what Bartz was tasked with doing. In both cases it appeared the end game (fending off Microsoft for Yang and right sizing the organization for Bartz) was just the wrong answer. It would seem the answer for Yahoo absent of acquisition is as the pre-eminent premium content play on the web. To do that properly the culture and components would need drastic attention. Acquisitions (AOL? Hulu?) would be in order and a return to a sales-driven culture that aligns with Madison Avenue, as described in this article on The Makegood.

Yahoo was the digital brand many in this industry grew up with and the depth of talent it has placed around the industry is staggering. Can it return to prominence without search, mobile and social at its core? That’s a huge hill to climb for the next CEO, if that’s really the job. In honest assessment, when Yahoo does determine “the who,” it will likely say everything about “the what” to come for the organization.

 This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and was  published in AdAge, September 8, 2011.  Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.

All of the commentaries, both scientific and anecdotal in nature, explore the impact Google has on us as a society and whether or not our brains are being rewired for a new normal. That said, if given a choice of life with Google or without, I’m betting few people if any would say life was better before the search giant led the information organization and discovery revolution. But, if people are OK with a trade-off of individual wisdom for collective or artificial intelligence, would they be OK with the potentially more catastrophic impact Google is having on our world? That is, the rapid disintegration of the middleclass workforce and its impact of the labor community in our society for the future to come.

Technology continues to change our world, often for the better. Google and many other companies just like it, including Microsoft, Apple, and Cisco, to name a few, are continuing to evolve and advance what we can realize as a people through technology. At the same time, entire sectors of industry continue to struggle with how to handle the changing landscape. In the U.S., river towns gave way to rail, which saw a decline with the construction of a national highway system. We now find a digital superhighway changing our world. Personally, the upside is huge. Professionally, the risks are as great as the opportunity.

Last week, Apple passed Exxon Mobil briefly as the country’s most valuable public company. Is this a staggering ascension? Not the least, because Apple currently has roughly 60 percent of the employee base of that of Exxon. In the advertising sector, you only need to look at the contrast between Google and some of the top marketing communications companies. WPP, the organization I work for, employs more than 146,000 people globally with revenues of more than £9 billion. By contrast, Google is on pace to generate more than $30 billion in 2011 with slightly less than 30,000 employees. These pressures extend to all sectors from automotive to retail as physical presence and headcount give way to virtual exposure and cloud power. Once mighty commerce businesses, companies like Circuit City, Borders, and Blockbuster, are now in the grave or circling the drain at the hand of a new era of commerce led by the likes of Amazon, Netflix, eBay, and Google.

The challenge at hand for every business and individual is to determine how to pivot into the modern realities of technology. It’s no longer good enough to assume that the companies of tomorrow will have a place for the employees of today, because that’s the way it has always been. Are Middle America and middle management destinations or stepping stones? If the American dream of realizing a better life than the generation before you is to be true at an individual level, there is little doubt that technology will play a key role.

But let’s be clear. Technology cannot be realized without the people behind it. Google and Apple only make people, companies, and sectors obsolete if they cannot, or worse, choose not to invest in the talent necessary to evolve into the reality of where the market is heading. The question for employees in this generation and the next is – how will your education, professional training, and personal dedication drive your positioning? Are you setting yourself up to be a player in the future, or allowing your number to be a part of a growing story of a generation without perceived and ready opportunities?

If not then, when the postscript is written on a generation, it may cite that industries and opportunities were rendered useless by innovation and evolution. It will also note that personal evolution and a lack of willingness to change are also cause for extinction. So, back to the thought at hand; Google is making us obsolete only if we are too stupid to change and innovate at the pace necessary to keep up with the leading companies of this age and the next.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and was  published in ClickZ, August 16, 2011.  Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.