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.

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…

For years, Google has tried to establish itself in the social space. Likewise, with every million new users the scale of the Facebook ad network has grown. With +Circles, Hangouts, and the rest, Google seems to have hit upon something of worth. People inside the industry and, more importantly, outside Madison Avenue and the Valley are intrigued. That said, the launch clearly caught the attention of the Social Network. Last week, Facebook responded to one of the most intriguing features of Google+, Hangouts (a group video chat application), by announcing its own solution – a partnership with Skype. Skype is the newest acquisition of Microsoft, another Google foe and one-time digital king.

But, for all the social gamesmanship that comes from this response, it’s likely to do little to halt someone from trying out or shifting over to Google+, if they are so inclined. What would it take for Facebook to evolve into an area that would keep consumers engaging and on site more than they already do? Perhaps the answer is all about the field upon which the battle is being fought. Google has clearly come onto Facebook’s turf, but it’s been attempting to do so for several years, so this is no sneak attack. However, if Facebook suddenly appeared on the search scene, well, I think it would be far most interesting.

In GroupM Search research published earlier this year, we found that consumers form a virtuous circle between the channels. While most start with search, they evolve and move into social when they feel the information available has capped and they want to find other data or get the opinions of others. Google +1, launched a few months back, was designed to be the continuation of Google’s effort (following its now ceased Twitter deal) to bring social into search and compete with Microsoft bringing Facebook into Microsoft’s index.

People don’t want to search. They want to go through a discovery phase, which is about deep and rich data. I suspect Facebook would have little interest in this and could be quite content to fully source this to Bing or just leave it outside the social walls altogether. Searchers also want to reach a destination, and that’s the play Facebook could somewhat easily make.

Imagine you seek to buy a new car, specifically a family SUV. Today, the pattern we have found suggests you use Google or Bing to identify a few candidates and then turn to your peer set to ask their opinions. In that process you may find that a few friends have liked Ford or Honda, but is that level of insight enough? Probably not. You may have to ask questions. Once you get their perspectives, you will then head back into the research loop of search.

Now imagine that instead of this, when you asked the first question inside Facebook, “Does anyone have a recommendation on a great SUV to buy?” the response is a blend of your graph and brand/third-party data. So, Facebook shows you the “likes” of brand pages, ideally with people liking specific models, not just the brand. But it also pulls in data to enable you to see which of those brands and products may be worth further consideration. This deeper search ability does two things. It connects your graph research with your extended research, but, more importantly for Facebook, it keeps you out of Google.

Brands continue to evaluate the worth of a Facebook fan and how they should buy vs. earn exposure. One way to attract brands is to give them connection points. Google built its business through the relevant intersection of content and intent. Using consumer questions in its graph and a better measure of intent could enable Facebook to not only enhance its ad properties, but also re-position the fight with a chief rival.

Regardless, the experience we have seen with Google since Bing started to gain market share suggests that innovation is most likely to be experienced when competition is present. Google+ represents the closest thing to that for Facebook since the late days of the MySpace reign. And whether or not Facebook decides to come to search, competition is present. Search and social will continue to deliver value for consumers in their experiences.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and was  published in ClickZ, July 19, 2011.  Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.

What comes next will be the true measure of the Facebook/agency relationship. Over the last decade, I’ve served on virtually every agency council run by a search engine and have seen the myriad of attempts engines have tried to make to connect with both stand-alone agencies and search units inside traditional media and creative shops. Every council or agency relationship has a stated mission of improving the working partnership to provide better opportunities. These are opportunities for agencies and clients to voice their wishes and discuss new innovations that would be meaningful, and opportunities for the platform to incorporate that feedback and create new models for revenue generation or enhance existing products.

Well, that’s the stated goal. The reality is they are often as fulfilling as bi-partisan politics. Why? Because every council is driven by the sales arm of the organization with a guest appearance role by product engineering. Ultimately, the powers that drive these platforms, be it Google, Microsoft or now Facebook, reside inside the engineering community that shapes innovation. And those individuals are either only included at random intervals, non-incentivized to incorporate this level of insight, or they simply hold “sales and agencies” in such disdain that the mere suggestion of collaboration draws a sneer and terse interaction. That leaves a sales team offering up the olive branch of peace and prosperity, and left to navigate into uncharted territory inside their own organization only to be met with an outcome that shows the council/partnership to be nothing more than a glorified sales effort with no real impact on bigger thought.

So, Facebook has made a fine first effort but it’s an easy effort and will ultimately mean little for future development. What they do now in structuring true agency teams will reveal if they have an appetite for input and collaboration or if they are putting lipstick on the pig and passing it off for something more than what it is – just another sales tactic. If Facebook wants agencies to be “Fans,” then they’d be well-served by making product engineering an empowered and key component of this agency structure.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and published in Instant Insights on ClickZ, Tuesday, May 24, 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.

The Oscars, Google’s search algorithm, the Eurovision Song Contest– they all famously choose the “best” answer to their questions by finding out who recommends whom -or what. The Oscars poll members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) – “the Academy” to its friends – to see who gets the most votes in a series of categories.  Google looks at the number of incoming links into a webpage, and the authority of those pages, to determine the authority of a webpage. The Eurovision Song Contest gives each competing nation several votes of different values that they can cast for anyone other than themselves.  It seems like a democratic system, on the surface;  at least it is if you’re a member of the Academy, own a website, or if you’re on the Eurovision committee for your country. Could you imagine only letting some people vote for your country’s president? It all seems a little elitist to me.  What about your poor huddled masses?  Most are not members of the Academy, don’t have their own website, nor are they living the dream of being part of their country’s Eurovision committee.  I’m thinking a lot more though, are probably members of one social network or another: Facebook (originally an elitist closed eco-system itself), MySpace, LinkedIn, Windows Live, to name just a few. Might there be something there that could  really democratize the web?

Last year, Bing managed to incorporate something that Google has been chasing for a while: true social search – as opposed to just universal search surfacing social content in the search results. Bing’s partnership with Facebook has given them access to the industry-standard social network. A hive of data that can be tapped to give even more personalized search results. If you are looking for a restaurant, and are logged into your Facebook account, then Bing will deliver search results that highlight restaurants that your friends “Like” – a true recommendation from a friend – on top of the algorithmic selections that they deliver. This is a huge step forward for personalization – and is one of the reasons that both Google and Microsoft were chasing a partnership with Facebook – although I don’t think that Bing received the acclaim that they deserve for this innovation.  It’s an interesting -and a positive-system, as there is no “Dislike” button, but as seen with relatively recent developments in Google’s search results, they are starting to consider the sentiment of pages that are linking to other pages to ensure that a page that is linked to with a lot of negative reviews is not gaining a top result, and as such greater exposure and more sales from the SERPs.

The interesting part of this to me, is a question: “What is the next data source?” I realize there are a lot of people busy working on or trying to work out what the next Facebook is, but I’m talking solely from the data perspective: Google needs to find an equivalent to Facebook, which is no easy task. They have made several attempts over the years to foster social networks of various sorts. One that I noticed recently was the Google Profile Pages – an opportunity to have users link through to their social networks, Twitter feeds, YouTube profiles, so that Google can understand what each user is doing and where. Google does not want to be reliant on a third party for their social indicator data if at all possible, and Bing shouldn’t rest on its laurels either. Microsoft has Windows Live, and could integrate a “Like” function – or a grading system if they wanted some more indicative data – fairly easily into the product to start generating their own “peer review data” for personalization purposes.

Either way, there is a potential sea-change in the way that Google, Bing et al are ranking pages – could social peer review be the new link-juice?  It presents an opportunity to ask not only the Academy, web developers, or committee members, but to ask the common person what their take is on a topic, and use that information to make tailored recommendations to their social-network-searcher-friend. Is this the wisdom of trusted crowds?

Can Microsoft capitalize on their lead? Is Google’s brand strong enough to get the data they need to take on the combination of Bing and Facebook? There is a lot to come in this space in 2011 as the search superpowers fight this one out and try to improve their recommendations and personalization.  Bring on the New Year!

On Nov 26, the New York Times ran a story by David Segal about DecorMyEyes and the questionable business practices of its founder and owner, Vitaly Borker. The story detailed how Mr. Borker was able to benefit through improved positioning on Google and other search engines from largely negative reviews of his business and its practices. As part of the story, the apparent inability of a search engine, specifically Google, to differentiate between positive commentary and negative reviews was highlighted. For a brief time the NYT had brought forward an obvious gap in the “Do No Evil” king’s prized algorithm – the inability to weight based on good and bad versus simply crediting for scale of commentary and links.

At any given time Google has hundreds of ranking factors at work to determine the best blend of results for a user. The basis for search engine optimization (SEO) was built more than a decade ago by aspiring companies focusing on on-page factors such as keyword density and behind-page tags, as well as off-page association via linking. The evolution of the algo has been vast with Yandex claiming to index 2,000 different criteria earlier this Fall. With so many more criteria, it is safe to say that Google and others have been indexing the opinions of the people, but like the determination of what to do with tweets and other new content types, the application of such been the delay to market.

It seems that the exposure in the NYT did not go unnoticed in Mountain View. Within days Google posted its response, making it clear that they continue to place utmost value on the type of experience they connect users with and have weighted it so in their algo. Of note was this piece on the official Google Blog:

“In the last few days we developed an algorithmic solution which detects the merchant from the Times article along with hundreds of other merchants that, in our opinion, provide an extremely poor user experience. The algorithm we incorporated into our search rankings represents an initial solution to this issue, and Google users are now getting a better experience as a result.”

Google also pointed out that they were less inclined to start weighing in on penalizing sites for negative comments because in some cases the court of public opinion against certain elected officials might mean an inability to find data whatsoever. As such there is no sentiment engine in the search algo today. Which raises the question of which signal in the Google ranking pool is being used? Search Engine Land editor-in-chief Danny Sullivan, in reading between the lines of the Google post, said that it “seems likely that Google is now using these (merchant) reviews as part of its ranking algorithm, though it never explicitly says this.”

And in this we reach the point of the proceedings where brands on trial must act. In any court proceeding, whether legal or that of public opinion, there comes a phase of discovery. Both sides have the opportunity to present and review the evidence at hand that will be woven into the case for or against their side. In the case of search we are now seeing more and more examples where consumers are not only reviewing the materials but creating the content that will be used to judge a brand.

Brands are on a roller coaster ride from feeling in control to being told to let go, to now seeing the perceptions of their customers shaping the outcome of future transactions. What happens next is where brands have a real opportunity to shape and influence public opinion. Whether it is the most recent Google change or the Bing and Facebook announcement, there is growing importance for brands to connect at a deep level with consumers. This goes beyond “like” and “friend” and extends to commitment to products and experiences with the brand.

On almost every receipt a customer receives in a department store or restaurant there is a phone survey attached designed to reward for feedback. These surveys serve a valuable purpose in the feedback loop, but they are no longer adequate in addressing the meaningful way consumers give feedback to other potential customers inside and out of their social graph. The new model for feedback has to be tied to immediate response, appropriate reward for doing so and facilitated in a method that can benefit the brand. Be it in store kiosks or on-table iPad surveys, there is a new model needed.

The intersection of intent and content in a relevant manner remains at the core of the search experience, and Google is attempting to ensure that it is done in a way that brings to valuable partners together. For brands this is a challenge – and opportunity – at one time. In America, anyone put on trial is guaranteed a proper defense. For brands in today’s digital age the criteria by which you will be judged is constantly shifting. To ensure a positive verdict, the time to evolve is now.

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search – The Americas, and published on MediaBizBloggers, Tuesday, Decemnber 7, 2010. Follow Chris on Twitter – @SearchBoss.