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.

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

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

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

Google Webmaster Guidelines state:

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

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

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

Some good rules to follow:

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

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

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

a) Part of Google’s response to recent questions over their search quality.
b) A direct attack on content farms. Content farms are mass-producers of content designed almost exclusively to deliver rankings in search engines – which compete with websites that may be considered more highly relevant.

The algorithm change was intended to improve the quality of sites that are surfacing in Google’s index, and as such, improve the consumer search experience. Because of this action Google has taken, most commentators are focusing on whether Demand Media and its competitors in the content market have been affected.  According to Demand Media, there has been no affect – and that seems to be backed up by some compelling data from Sistrix, a company that monitors search engine rankings regularly with a dataset of one million keywords. Following Google’s update to their algorithm, Sistrix published a list detailing the 25 biggest losers impacted by the change. As we might expect, the list is crammed full of content farms, most of which the average searcher has likely never heard of. However, many in the search industry expected to see more of Demand Media’s properties factored into the list.

Clearly, having all of your traffic eggs in one Google basket is not a great idea for any company, just as a business relying on a sole big client would be left in despair if the client left. Demand has made it clear that Google is not their only noteworthy traffic source.  Despite the assumption by many, not all content companies deliver poor-quality content, and as such, many have very strong link profiles that help justify their status as a quality resource. However, the content farms that are producing low-quality content naturally are the ones that are being targeted by Google with this algo update, and it seems to have been largely successful.  No engine is ever going to be able to eradicate all spam from their index, yet this update appears to be a step in the right direction.

The Sistrix data, along with Google’s own blog post, suggest that the update has delivered the desired result, but that leaves the question of who is taking up the newly vacated slots on page one of the search engine results page (SERP)? It is unlikely that these low-quality results are going to be replaced by anything different in terms of type of content (video, news, local, image). But what this does represent is an opportunity for bigger, more established brands to focus on their SEO strategy and (re)claim search real estate for which they are the best resource – even if they were previously out-maneuvered by nimble, less brand-guidelined competitors who were generating mountains of content to feed Google’s algorithm the recipe they desired.

Google highlighted that this update affects almost 12% of search results in the United States, and stated there are two main types of sites that would be affected:

1. Those sites that scrape content from others and do not have much original content of their own.
2. Content farms that provide low quality content that is neither authoritative nor useful to the searcher – which naturally doesn’t affect all ‘content farms’.

Like them or loathe them, the smart content farms are generating content based on demand as defined by user search habits.  There is nothing preventing those content farms from generating quality content, which is why we are not seeing all content farms being punished by this update.

As with most every algorithm update, there will be some sites that are affected and some that are not.  But if search result quality goes up, then consumers win and a focus by advertisers and marketers on delivering high-quality content from a reputable domain will continue to be the recipe for Google success.

Since the publication of the story, JCPenney has seen one of the most dominant search ranking campaigns in the market reduced by algorithmic penalties before being shredded by manual penalties applied by Google. While representatives of JCPenney claim innocence, and no proof of actual authorization or participation by Penney’s has been uncovered, the judgment has been rendered with rankings that had previously hit #1 for the company now being found in the range of position 70 on Google.

This story brings several key points to light:

1. SEO is now a mainstream tactic in the digital space. Its importance for many businesses cannot be minimized, nor can the lengths some companies will go to in order to gain top rankings. Brands must have a SEO strategy to be viable in the search space, while ensuring that their tactical execution does not violate the terms of service for Google, Bing or any search engine.
2. Google itself is not always catching the black hat tactics; therefore both SEO practitioners and brands alike should be vigilant and monitor their competitors in the search engine results pages (SERPs). Paying close attention to the competition, a JCPenney competitor could quickly decipher that the company’s website was not well optimized. This may have played a role in raising a red flag to prompt the reporter’s investigation.
3. Search strategies, particularly for large brands, need not to be focused on short-sighted gains, but on a long-term strategy to develop well-optimized websites, compelling content (whether that is the best-looking sofa or a great piece of editorial). And, even in the wake of the NYT’s link-fueled exposé, brands should continue to seek out legitimate and relevant links from other websites.
4. Given the penalties enforced by Google without confirmation that the brand was involved, it remains essential for advertisers to diversify search efforts. Just as brands should invest in SEO to avoid a singular strategy around paid search, they should likewise minimize the impact that algorithm changes can have on organic rankings, and subsequently, revenue.

The Rise of SEO Importance and the Brand Lesson

Strong relationships between a brand and their SEO agency or SEO team are critical so that the brand’s goals are clear and the strategy and tactics to get there are understood. Brands need to be acutely aware of the search engine optimization strategies that are being employed in their name – whether this is an internal SEO team under pressure to deliver results or an SEO agency with the sole focus of improving a brand’s rankings across the major search engines. It is not uncommon to work with brands that have high hopes for their SEO campaigns, but that also lack the resources or budget to implement SEO recommendations.  Given the limited optimization in place on the JCPenney website, the company may have been limited in resources or unwilling to optimize the website itself, and instead, focused on the link-building portion of the campaign to achieve initially spectacular, and eventually disastrous, results.

Link building has become a sexy solution for many SEO agencies and big brands. Typically, link building requires no on-site alterations, thus minimizing impact on the consumer and reducing the time a developer spends on the project, while still producing measurable gains owing to its influence on the search engine algorithms.

Link building serves an essential role in the SEO process. Despite the negative press around this reported unauthorized action by the retailer, it is not something to dismiss across the board. If done properly, link building can be a key means for brands to improve their association around the web and improve rankings. But, brands should insist on transparency from their SEO agency on their link building tactics, and specifically seek affirmation that the tactics do not violate any search engine terms of service.

In a world where a number one ranking on Google or Bing could be worth millions of dollars in sales, brands must consider their longevity and resist the temptation to violate, or allow their vendors to violate, a search engine’s terms of service.  By focusing on long-term, white hat strategies for improving organic search rankings, advertisers can move up the SERPs in rank, deliver increased sales, and be sure not to fall foul of the search engine SPAM teams.

It is a complicated landscape where the rewards for good rankings can make or break a business, and the punishment for violating the search engines’ terms of service can be hard to recover from.  From our observation, it seems that the punishment received from manual penalties is significantly harsher than if the algorithm detects a violation on its own. Recent history, as a clear guide, suggests that there is no worse crime in the digital space today then to embarrass Google, specifically its search algorithm, publicly.

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.

Find out in this video blog.