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

So, what is important?  Traffic volume and conversions are now the two most important data points of interest.  We continue to build trust and value with our clients by proving to them, through data, how our efforts are impacting these metrics.  This puts visibility in the area of “inference.”  One can infer that if traffic and conversions are increasing in Google, then one has a pretty good ranking in the results.  Along with traffic volume and conversions, we should also focus on engagement (time spent on site), bounce rate and link popularity. This is a more streamlined approach to reporting which highlights activity that is relevant to the client.

There is a real advantage for those of us who choose to see the silver lining in this major industry adjustment.  We always knew that the activity in the socialsphere had an impact on organic search; now we’re tasked with how to make that work to our benefit.  And how we, as SEO’ers, do that is by educating our clients on how social media and SEO complement each other and develop campaigns to support and prove that.  We will need to be proactive in understanding how the different social platforms can be optimized and build this into our SEO best practices. Making these adjustments and continuing to see success as a trifecta; SEO, Paid and Social is what will keep us as strong players in the game. 

With that said, I don’t think real-time results present a negative vs. positive impact on SEO. They’ve become a catalyst for change and an advocate for what has become the essence of GroupM Search’s “Propulsion” search strategy — looking at your paid, owned and earned media holistically — in this case paid search, SEO and social media — to achieve optimal performance in the online market.  So, I say we do away with the thinking of positive versus negative, and view it with the optimism of opportunity.

For more information on Google’s real-time search, and to read some of the opinions of SEO experts please visit the following sites: iMEDIA Connection, MediaPost, SEO Chat and Mashable.

The Influenced: Social Media, Search and the Interplay of Consideration and Consumption

A study announced today by GroupM Search, comScore and M80, exploring the interplay of search marketing and social media, reveals the dramatic correlation influenced discovery of brands through social media has with search behavior, including more lower-funnel searches and increased paid search click-through-rates (CTR).

The study,“The Influenced: Social Media, Search and the Interplay of Consideration and Consumption,” explored the correlation between social media exposure and search behavior across different verticals, including automotive, consumer packaged goods and telecommunications.

Key findings include:
- Consumers exposed to a brand’s influenced social media and paid search are 2.8x more likely to search for that brand’s products

- There was a 50% CTR increase in paid search when consumers were exposed to both influenced social media and paid search

- There was a 42-point lift in searcher penetration around brand product terms when consumers were exposed to both influenced social media and paid search compared to paid alone

What the study tells us is bigger than correlation, making the topic at large, Discovery. We’ve learned how internet users discover and engage with brands in social media and how that discovery influences search behavior. The findings help us to better understand how the intent expressed by consumers via search is established through social media exposure and the interplay between the two channels.

Of note, it further validates our view that generating upper-funnel awareness and influencing consideration through influenced social media (social media leveraged by a brand advertiser) can produce better down-the-funnel performance with paid media, such as paid search. In our white paper, we expand on the findings and address the value of the synergy between paid, owned and earned media. Additionally, we address the state of media today, challenges advertisers face, and introduce the discussion of Media Delivery and Media Discovery and the new thinking we must consider in making maximizing engagement that drives lower-funnel activity.

As CEO of GroupM Search-The Americas Chris Copeland addresses in the whitepaper,:

“As advertisers come to recognize a need to create greater connections on a one to one level with consumers, they also must acknowledge a shift in their approach to advertising. If they agree with the assessment that media delivery in traditional forms has a limited impact given the threats identified above, then it is equally important to understand the new advertising mandate of media discovery.

Media discovery represents a shift in approach where allowing your brand to be central to the conversation but doing so in a manner that uses your brand, its products and the assets associated with both at the center. Media delivery has been about using buying clout to drive scale and push out paid media to broad swaths of consumers. Media discovery is about using the owned and earned media that a brand can produce to its advantage.”

He later concludes the implications for digital advertising at large:

“At this stage of digital advertising development, the goal has to be investing more intelligently to get people into your brand consideration and drive them through the process to a location well suited for paid media effectiveness, such as paid search.”

On Tuesday, October 6, GroupM Search, comScore and M80 will sharing the findings and implications of the research for the first time publicly. Check it out at SMX East at 1:30 – 2:45 p.m. in Room 1A03.

With the changes in the economy, everyone is spending less. From the average consumer up to the Fortune 500 Company, we all are experiencing limited spending powers. As a natural reaction, when faced with any of life’s limitations we tend to expand our imagination and brainstorm new ways of getting things done. We immerse ourselves in the “think mode” of how can I do more with less? This is even true for Search Marketing.

Owing to its fine ability to be measured as well as the high return on investment, SEM has become one of the most resilient areas of marketing. But now, even we, as Search Marketers, are accepting the reality that the budget cuts are affecting us too. We can no longer be so uber-focused on Paid Search as the “end-all-be-all” of online marketing. We are beginning to spread our wings and consider search from a more holistic perspective. This epiphany has shown the light on SEO.

The value of SEO has, for the most part, been undermined because of the time it takes to see the fruits of your labor and the labor itself. SEO as a standalone strategy works well for any brand whose idea of online success is coupled with the commitment to longevity. But SEO, as part of an overall strategy with paid, defines success with increased traffic, brand strength, brand authority and most importantly, cost efficiencies. Now that companies are cutting back on their overall budgets, thus having less to spend in paid search, they are considering SEO as their golden ticket to remain competitive in the online space.

In an article on iMediaConnection, Turn to SEO to help beat a bad economy, Seth Besmertnik does an excellent job of summing up WHY marketers will start to look toward SEO as the saving grace to online marketing. The point I found to be the most thought provoking was his closing remarks:

We have known for a long time that traffic in search is entirely disproportionate to spend. Eighty-six percent of consumer clicks happen in the natural space, yet the lion’s share of spend goes to paid search. Marketers have been told for years that this is acceptable because paid search is easier to justify. With new economic woes fueling stress in every market sector, and so much more to be gained in natural search, I am thinking that by next year, interactive will have a new favorite.

I’m a huge fan of SEO, but I’m an even bigger fan of integrating marketing efforts to experience a wider range of success; finding this article made it feel like Christmas again. SEO is no longer the red headed step child; instead it’s become one of the brightest members of the online marketing mix!

Doing a little research, I’ve found that while people can see the innate good in having this capability, many are skeptical and asking some of the same questions that I have…How long before this gesture to improve personalization will start to impact the overall natural listings and allow us to affect a site’s ranking based on this voting system?  If this becomes the case, then how do we keep Pandora’s Box from opening and giving companies a new space and opportunity to unethically push competitors further down in the search results?  If this is really about personalization of search, then why are comments made public? What is the real motivation behind this social engagement?  Will paid search be impacted at all?

As it stands today, your vote only counts to you.  So, the majority of the decisions that you make about your Google search experience are kept nice and safely tucked behind your login information.  To the everyday Google user this may seem to streamline their virtual life, but for those of us in the business it raises eyebrows and red flags.  It seems all good on the surface, but if the foreseeable changes that the above questions have brought to life come into fruition, this new property may discombobulate the entire search industry.

For now, I’m not committing to an opinion of good or bad.  I’m searching for understanding by way of alternate perspectives.  So, if by chance you have one, please share.

If you’d like to read more about the new SearchWiki, here are a few resources:

The Official Google Blog

ReadWriteWeb

Google Web Search Help

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… C: wait… SD: wait…

But as any coupon-cutting mom knows, it’s not always about spending less. It’s about getting more for your money. Savvy shoppers know where the bargains are and are methodical about planning any shopping campaign. I think companies should take a cue from these shopping champs and ask “how can we spend smarter?”

Search is known as a highly effective marketing channel, but far too many companies are leaving opportunities on the table. Just like your mom would tell you to squeeze all the toothpaste out of the tube, marketers should be asking whether they have squeezed all the value out of their campaigns. Here are three areas where marketers can spend smarter:

1. Consistent SEO across all web properties. Most companies have an extensive network of sites including a corporate portal, branded sites and campaign micro sites. These assets should be working hard for you in Organic Search by generating free traffic, expanding your brand’s visibility and creating efficiencies in your overall search campaign. The non-sponsored or organic search listings are clicked on 7 out of 10 times, so frankly, it’s a space you cannot afford to overlook. However, the reality is that most brand sites that I review have major problems just getting the engines to crawl their content and are therefore non-competitive in organic results. A smart start is to apply SEO best practices and optimization to all your web properties. The next level is to effectively leverage your collective web properties together to expand your presence and direct visitors to the landing page which matches best with their intent or position in the buying cycle.
2. Video. Video has seen explosive growth. The demographic breakout of YouTube users mirrors the demographics of all online Americans. While I’ve seen some advertisers take video created for TV and upload it online to YouTube, few are maximizing their potential in video search. A frequent misstep is adding video to the site in a player that cannot be crawled and indexed by the engines. The smart spend here is to create short, focused videos specifically for your online audience around targeted topics. Use SEO best practices to achieve 100% indexing and optimize video both on your site and on third-party video sharing sites. Finally, harness the power of your users and make it one-click easy for them to share, bookmark and discuss your video.
3. Social Media Optimization. Brands are beginning to buy in to the concept of social media. Many social media campaigns produce compelling content, but fail to align it with existing search campaign goals. Are you supporting your social media efforts through search? If your campaign goal is to drive awareness, why not support it through paid and organic search? And to flip that, do your social media efforts support your search campaigns? If given proper SEO attention, campaign assets such as video, blogs, social profile pages and images can develop into long-term assets for your brand in the search engines.

So go ahead and take a good hard look at your current campaigns. Ask yourself if you’ve squeezed the last drop of toothpaste out of the tube.

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… C: wait… SD: wait…

• 72% of Fortune 500 companies have very low to non-existent visibility for their most advertised keywords
• 20% of Fortune 500 companies have low to mid presence
• 8% of Fortune 500 companies studied showed mid to strong presence for their most advertised keywords

Why is SEO the red headed step-child of Search?

In my experience here at Outrider, I’ve found that the greatest challenge presented to SEO’ers is getting clients to own and commit to achieving success in the organic space.  As an agency, we tout the idea and proven value of approaching search holistically and using the historical data from paid to influence organic and vice a versa, but how often do search strategists and advertisers really reap the benefits?  Clients at large see the added value and necessity of attaining a visible presence in both the paid and organic space, but because of the cross-functional demands of SEO implementation, i.e. Marketing, Corporate Communications, IT, Legal,. advertisers’ commitment and participation falters.

Opportunity for engagement is lost when we don’t pursue and achieve synergy between paid and organic search.  I don’t know about you, but I know I’ve done the whole “70/30 rule” song and dance a many of times and while intentions are always great, I still haven’t been able to grasp the results that makes all that dancing worth while.  Clients know that their bottom line can be positively impacted with a graduated ROI, but they too have to put work into making that happen, and that’s not always so easy.  Paid search is instant gratification, where as organic search is like wine—it gets better over time.  I think in the minds of many major advertisers, this latent realization of success or failure AND the coordination it takes on their end to make things happen, justifies SEO being overlooked.

Now the question is how do we fix it?  What can we do as search consultants to put ourselves in a position to better manage our clients and provide advertisers with assurance that a solid SEO program can easily be accomplished, especially when working in tandem with your search strategists? What can we do to ensure that a strategists’ hard work in defining opportunity for improved SEO is not in vain, and most importantly, start building case studies around success stories to prove that to fully experience relevance we have to make the red headed step-child feel like it’s a loved and cherished part of the family too?

I’m interested to know what you think.  Let’s brainstorm together and see if we can develop a resolution that will increase SEO results for 2009!

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… C: wait… SD: wait…

My issue isn’t with those that write about the space, but write about it through the lens of their financial agenda. There are certain people in the industry who write about Paid Search because that’s where their expertise is, just as there are blogs and authors who slant towards Organic Search. I have no issue with them. The issue I have is with the constant ink spilled explaining why one approach must be above all others and it is so at the detriment of everything else.

I wrote a column for MediaPost’s Search Insider earlier this month where I started with a pending panel discussion at SMX East on “Do Agencies Get Search?” That reference served as a quick jumping off point for ways that search marketers and agencies alike should think about search. Whether agencies got it or not was never up for debate or even discussion in the column. Yet, all comments about the post on the MediaPost site were about that panel topic and all from the bent of non-agency search marketers extolling why agencies couldn’t get it. Ability to read past the first paragraph when choosing to comment apparently doesn’t factor into some search marketers’ skill sets, either.

Likewise, how many columns from tool vendors must we have about why those who license not build are wrong. And how many paid authors must slam organic as being inefficient when measured by the standards of paid. You think? Paid Search is more measured and receives credit as last click for virtually all online activity; you think it’s going to out perform organic on those grounds? Those of us who write in this space have an obligation to do one of two things: bring a piece of our own expertise to the market which advances enlightenment or education, or provide pro-active forward thinking suggestions that cause the industry to think about its direction and the opportunities ahead.

Otherwise, it’s just pandering to the base and I can get enough of that from CNN and the presidential candidates.

“Sally, I think you have the gist of what I do in that there are two main areas, but they are called Paid & Organic SEM.  Please let me explain.  On the Paid side of things, we are talking about ‘Paid Search Engine Marketing’ or marketing to the ‘Paid’ or ‘Sponsored’ listings.   When you do a search from, say your laptop or mobile device, using Google, Yahoo, MSN, or even Facebook, the paid or sponsored listings are usually located at the top and to the right of the Organic listings.  A marketer can expect to market to roughly 20-30% of the search engine results when they employ Paid SEM.  When you said PPC, or pay per click, this is a type of ad that is utilized in Paid Search Engine Marketing.  Paid Inclusion is another.”

Sally’s eyes haven’t glazed over yet, so I continue.

“As for Organic SEM, what you called SEO, this involves marketing to the Organic search results of the major search engines.  Organic results form the body of the search results page on the left-hand side of the engines.  SEO, as you mentioned, stands for Search Engine Optimizing.  This is one of the tactics used in Organic SEM.  Sometimes the SEO tactic is called On-Page or On-Site Optimization.  This is where you focus on optimizing the pages of a site so that search engine spiders can easily crawl through your site, know what your pages are about, and serve it up in the Organic search results.  Another tactic employed in Organic SEM is Off-Page or Off-Site Optimization. This is where you improve the authority of a web site by utilizing different ways of garnering links from other web sites to your own site.  The search engines look at links as if they are votes for your site; the more high quality links you have, the more votes your site has and generally speaking, the higher up in the index your page will appear in the Organic listings in the engines.”

Sally gives me a satisfying “oh, I get it” and I feel that my job here is done, other than to finish my delicious glass of red wine, a tasty Beringer Founders’ Estate.

In my opinion, when we encounter the ‘Slurry Sally’s’, clients, or colleagues who use terms like SEO and PPC, we should be correcting them.  In the case of PPC, they are calling a whole branch of Search Engine Marketing by one of the ad types used.  When they call Organic SEM, SEO, they are calling the other main branch of SEM by one of the tactics employed.  To me, this seems to be downright inaccurate.  Besides the terms Paid & Organic SEM being more accurate in terms of the activities that we undertake for our clients, they also carry an air of legitimacy and sophistication that befits the fantastic things we do for our clients in these branches of marketing.

I put out a call to SEM’ers everywhere; please help me to clean up the nomenclature of our profession so that we can move forward with our clients, with an accurate portrayal of what we do.  Let’s help ourselves bring clarity and legitimacy to our exciting, new and growing profession called SEM, before the poorly named parts become our entrenched monikers.

There has been a lot of speculation and apparent confirmation (as per Shoemoney’s recent blog post) that Best of the Web Directory (BOTW) may be buying The Open Directory (DMOZ). If this goes through, the combined directories (assuming they are combined) would rival the Yahoo! Directory in size and scope making it the largest web directory on the Internet.

I could understand why AOL would want to drop the DMOZ as it really generates no direct revenue and requires a lot of resources to manage and maintain. Based on all the corruption allegations and the lack of feedback from the volunteer editors, I think now is a good time to try and save the DMOZ by selling it and BOTW is probably the best suitor.

BOTW has the opportunity to turn the DMOZ around and make it into an organized and functional directory much like their own directory, offering full support and reasonable review timeframes. This leaves many questions for the search marketing community including:

- Will Google still use it as a data resource for their own directory – Google Directory?

- Will Google still value the ‘link juice’ that the DMOZ currently provides (BOTW was not hit with the Google web directory penalty as many of the other web directories experienced, so it is possible that Google may still value these links after a merger)?

- Will the two directories be run as two separate entities or merged?

- Will all current listings remain? Will they be updated? Will the structure change?

- Will it remain free (unlikely)? If not, what will it cost?

It will be interesting to watch if and when a merger between these two industry giants happens and what new opportunities this may provide for the online community. In the end, I believe the overall result will force the issue of what the real value of a web directory (no matter what size) is, in today’s search engine world.