1. Personal Results, which enable you to find information just for you, such as Google+ photos and posts—both your own and those shared specifically with you, that only you will be able to see on your results page; 
2. Profiles in Search, both in autocomplete and results, which enable you to immediately find people you’re close to or might be interested in following; and, 
3. People and Pages, which help you find people profiles and Google+ pages related to a specific topic or area of interest, and enable you to follow them with just a few clicks. Because behind most every query is a community. 

The changes show a continued and clear commitment to the Google+ social network as noted by Stephen Hall, Sr. Partner, Director, Global Search for Catalyst online, a GroupM company. “This is a move to help push adoption of G+ on brands.  Growing your community/circles from a brand perspective, as well as increased sharing, should dramatically increase brand usage, given the vast potential increases in traffic from improved rankings.  This gets interesting for many brands as it forces them into the ‘content creator’ category. So for those that are not historically creating content, there is going to need to be a shift in the way that they are marketing their products and services.”

While many expected Google to move in this direction, there was clear unrest in some corners of the worldwide web over this move to a definition of a consumers’ world that is from Google and by Google. Twitter’s general counsel Alex Macgilivray, tweeted, in part, “Bad day for the Internet” and later the company, which once had a relationship with Google, expanded to say “For years, people have relied on Google to deliver the most relevant results anytime they wanted to find something on the Internet. We’re concerned that as a result of Google’s changes, finding this information will be much harder for everyone,” Twitter continued. “We think that’s bad for people, publishers, news organizations and Twitter users.”

Google’s response put all responsibility for any wider reach from Google back on the rest of the companies dedicated to cultivating the social graph. As reported in AdWeek and Search Engine Land, Google Fellow Amit Singhal said, “Facebook and Twitter and other services, basically, their terms of service don’t allow us to crawl them deeply and store things. Google+ is the only [network] that provides such a persistent service. Singhal added that “if others were willing to change, we’d look at designing things to see how it would work.”

For now, Google will begin rolling out these new features to all users and brands are likely to have little choice but to further engage with Google+ and the continued content creation required to distinguish. Dan Cristo, Director of SEO Innovation for Catalyst, advised, “One major thing I would expect brands to look out for is increased competition in the organic space. Previously, your organic search competitors were primarily websites. This is changing to now include anyone in a searchers social graph. Not only will preferences of ‘friends’ emerge in results as an answer to a question before a brand, those friends will be prompted to respond in real-time in this new world. Brands want to be the ones answering consumers’ questions. In order to earn that right, brands need to attain the same intimacy level friends have in the social graph, and act more like a friend as opposed to a brand.”

This article was written by Chris Copeland, CEO, GroupM Search , and was  published on MediaBizBloggers, Jan. 24, 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…

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.

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.

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.

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.