The widespread availability of fixed line and mobile broadband has made the internet a faster, smoother place for the majority of users. However, it has also significantly raised expectations with the result that sites which are poorly optimised for speed will be ignored in favour of those that load quickly and perform consistently.
Google Analytics regularly publishes Site Speed reports in order to demonstrate which sites are fastest loading and which countries around the world routinely offer the best performance for web browsers.
Interestingly, one of the most recent reports suggests that the gap between desktop and mobile browsing is closing at a faster rate than some had predicted. This means that optimisation needs to take into account not only traffic from a laptop or desktop, but also visitors who are connected wirelessly and who are browsing via a tablet or smartphone.
The mean page load time for mobile devices sits at just over ten seconds, while twenty nine per cent of web pages viewed from a mobile device take between three and seven seconds to load.
While desktop machines with a landline connection clearly have an advantage, Google has pointed out that these figures take into account sites designed specifically to be viewed on a smartphone. This suggests that there is perhaps room for improvement when it comes to page load speeds, potentially attainable through even better optimisation and management of web server resources.
For businesses that rely upon making a good first impression through their web presence regardless as to the platform on which it is viewed, taking a proactive approach to mobile page load speeds will almost certainly deliver better conversion rates and repeat custom.
Google’s latest breakdown of the page load times across different industry sectors makes for interesting reading. Sites relating to the automotive industry are at the top of the charts, with mean load times of under six seconds, closely followed by those in health, beauty and e-commerce.
Only three sectors exceeded the eight second mean page load time mark, with entertainment and housing sites taking almost nine seconds, perhaps understandable given the inherent rich media involvement.
News sites languished at the bottom of the table with a mean load time of almost 13 seconds. Key reasons behind this position are believed to include sheer traffic volumes and their appeal to an ever growing mobile audience by dint of the content and services they provide. However, this does not prohibit further optimisation with the aim of lowering these averages and improving the value of such sites to the end user.
Other factors are known to influence these statistics; most notably the necessarily international nature of the results. However, when you look at the country-by-country breakdown, the UK is in a good position, with mean page load times of just under five seconds putting it in fourth place behind Canada, Sweden and market-leading Japan.
For individual statistics, it is possible to use Google Analytics to learn a lot more about the page load speeds associated with your site and to adjust your strategy accordingly.
In the age of ubiquitous internet access and incessant social networking usage, many companies are turning to services such as Facebook in order to kick-start marketing campaigns and to drive traffic to their sites.
However, there are those who fear the dominance of Facebook. It would seem that, in some quarters at least, the firm’s mixed reputation regarding data collection and privacy is eroding the levels of trust which had previously ingratiated it with those involved in the consumer engagement process. Even new developments that are clearly in consumers’ interests, such as the sharing of Facebook’s URL blacklists with five security software companies to stop the sharing of links to malicious websites on their network, could be viewed by consumers as onerous.
Part of the problem is that, in the online world, data has become a currency in and of itself. Consumers have become reluctant to part with hard cash in return for online content, reflecting the growing availability of ‘free’ services. The process can be beneficial for both parties if user data is provided as part of the transaction.
It seems reasonable to assume that most end users would be happy to provide marketers with data if the online environment was in such a state that this practice was not treated with considerable suspicion. However, the harvesting of information by Facebook and its peers is an act in which users are necessarily complicit regardless as to any qualms they may have. Some view this approach to the transaction as less than fair or balanced.
One problematic factor is that users end up feeling as though they are being placed under surveillance. Even if Facebook itself behaves benevolently, it provides the tools to track movement, follow actions and ultimately alter lives in a manner that is not necessarily positive.
While Facebook’s behaviour does not directly reflect on marketers and their brands, its hundreds of millions of users are beginning to suffer from the misconception that all forms of data collection are to be viewed with some scepticism.
This clearly has an impact on any businesses that require data as a means of fuelling growth and accurately targeting future campaigns.
This is not only an issue that affects the views of the online public, but it alters the perception of data collecting activities in the eyes of the authorities. Increased scrutiny is not going to be problematic for those firms acting honourably, but it will likely become yet another item to put on the agenda when planning any significant campaigns.
Facebook is making significant attempts to address these issues in the public eye, clarifying the ways in which users’ data is employed. This includes making some tweaks to their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities in advance of their IPO, reportedly in reaction to consumer concerns about how privacy and user data is handled.
Ultimately, however, it needs to create an atmosphere in which people feel confident when sharing information online. This will allow marketers and other companies, which increasingly rely upon the ecosystem that continues to develop around social networking, to continue with essential data collection activities.
There is currently a great deal of talk about Google’s gradual move towards ‘semantic search’. This necessitates collecting a higher level of personal data in order to increase its accuracy and functionality, a move that is receiving a somewhat mixed reaction.
The technology surrounding semantic search is based upon the creation of an algorithm that will allow the search engine to rationalise search queries in a similar way to the manner in which a human would process them. This contrasts sharply with pure text based search wherein a list of ‘hopefuls’ is provided for the user to filter for themselves.
Matt Cutts, the head of Google’s Webspam team, first posted a video response around the subject of semantic search back in April 2010. However, last month Google Enterprise Vice President Amit Singh revealed in a Wall Street Journal article that Google has been building a database of “entities” (e.g. objects, people and places) that can be used to deliver search results that better reflect “how humans understand the world”. How? Through the creation of previously-ignored associations between these entities in search algorithms.
So what exactly does semantic search mean and how will it impact on the future of SEO? Here are a few examples that will help to define it:
In a similar manner, it would also ignore ‘irrelevant’ words in a phrase that has been entered as a question and discount the superlatives that a ‘natural language’ search query will routinely include, common examples of which include ‘best’.
It goes without saying that many sites are going to require serious revision of their content, keywords and page layout in order to maintain their current rankings.
On the positive side of things, sites which already have a reputation for credibility and are considered ‘trusted’ will continue to be seen as such, provided that they continue to offer unique, relevant content and ensure that it is correctly labelled.
Google may be a seemingly unstoppable force but that doesn’t mean that everything the search engine giant has developed has turned to gold. Some of Google’s many ‘side projects’, helpful features and expansions have faltered or have failed to attract the level of user interest anticipated by the firm’s developers.
In common with many organisations, Google is apparently trying to cut back on the number of projects with which it is involved in order to direct resources at ensuring the best possible quality within its mainstream services. As a result, it is of little surprise that recent days have seen the removal or at least adjustment of existing Google services, particularly those offered in the U.S.
You may or may not have heard of Google Related. This feature was intended to provide additional information on whatever it was you were looking at online. Examples included directions, reviews of products and businesses and similar results in which you may have been interested.
This service was cleverly conceived and the contextual information could be extremely useful if, for example, you were trying to find a Thai restaurant within a set geographical location. However, the Google Related toolbar just didn’t set the world on fire and has now been put out to pasture as part of the firm’s Spring announcement.
Google Related may be mourned in some quarters but its demise is likely to appease those who run websites providing information on businesses and local services. Many had worried that Google Related would lead users to both rival websites and to Google’s own pages.
Another significant victim of Google’s recent announcement is the Patent Search. This useful tool allowed internet users to access a result’s listing comprised only of existing patents. So if you were wondering whether a certain product already existed and was patented, you could utilise the Patent Search to find results for the idea. This was a significant help for anyone researching patents. During its tenure it served to augment the information from other patent indexing sites, including those belonging to national Patent Offices.
Instead of offering Patent Search as a separate function, Google is continuing the quality over quantity theme by merging Patent Search’s functionality with the main Google.com website. Users interested in researching Patents can simply type their query into Google as they would for other search terms.
However, Patent Search’s disappearance may upset rather more users than the demise of Google Related. It had the potential for global distribution and there are concerns that it may be more difficult for former Patent Search users to effectively research by utilising a standard Google query. The primary concern is that the results won’t be filtered by that which relates to patents and that which doesn’t.
Any rationalisation process, however essential, must have its winners and losers. Every service shuttered by Google serves to reinforce the areas that Google is prioritising. Namely, the core advertising business, products with high user take-up – YouTube, Chrome- and the ventures that drive innovation in social, commerce, enterprise and local applications.
Offline marketing still has its place, although many agencies seem to forget its existence and focus almost entirely on the online space. Many companies also continue to keep separate teams for online and offline marketing, and this can lead to unco-ordinated marketing campaigns and strategies.
Understanding the value of offline marketing is essential and tying this tightly to an online campaign can lead to additional benefits in audience reach and participation, conversions, and effectiveness. For instance, it is an old marketing adage that a prospect will require up to seven exposures to marketing material to act on the message. So, blanket campaigns have always been popular to reach the prospective audience as many places as possible. However, in the offline world, this type of campaign was only available to the richest and largest companies who could splash out on TV ads, magazine advertorials, billboards, newspaper full page ads etc.
The arrival of the Internet levelled that playing field and many small businesses have realised the potential of online marketing. But often at the expense of any offline marketing. For those who are online, and even for many who do not use the Internet, well, we have all heard of Google, haven’t we? But, Google is still ramping up the amount it spends on offline advertising, year on year, focussing particularly on TV, but also advertising on other mediums too. For instance, in 2010 Google spent $56million compared to $213million last year. Of that, a remarkable $70m went on TV ads.
It is interesting to ponder why Google needs to do this. Not only is it about gathering in those people who do not encounter Google on the Net by targeting them ‘wherever they are’, but the range of products Google now has is so extensive that even the most devoted Google fan has a hard time keeping up. (Google Play has arrived in the black toolbar recently, but many of the Google innovations are “hidden” in Product Labs within the relevant app eg Gmail).
Google is not a master at offline advertising, and some campaigns have garnered flak before now, but Google (the King of online advertising) has had to learn in order to reach the widest possible audience, just as we all do. By understanding exactly who the audience are, the triggers for action (be that a sale, a discount coupon, a freephone number, or a competition), and where the audience hangs out, offline marketing can help as part of a co-ordinated campaign.
We have seen how print and TV advertising has taken a hit because of the variety of options available to advertise online, but it is not wise to cut back entirely on local and regional advertising, print ads, newspaper and magazine press releases, or even a few simple guerrilla tactics to attract attention to your business.
What offline advertising tactics do you still deploy and how do you combine them with your online strategies?
We at ClickThrough are a charitable bunch. Following on from last year’s momentous Comic Relief cake-and-underpants-athon, we’ve now turned our attention to the more serious (but no less embarrassing) world of sport. Our Sport Relief challenge was simple – cycle the equivalent of Lichfield to Trafalgar Square, a mean 118 miles.
Two exercise bikes were set up in ClickThrough HQ and at 0900 hours on Tuesday 20th March 2012, we set off. What followed can only be described as epic. Several members of staff (including one mock McEnroe and a counterfeit Cantona) were seen sweating, grunting and bizarrely, dancing their way to the finish. In the end we surprised ourselves with our speed and decided to cycle back again. Well, those websites aren’t going to market themselves are they?
In the end we raised an incredible £695. But it’s not too late to donate. Watch our endeavours below, and please donate at http://my.sportrelief.com/sponsor/sponsorclickthroughmarketing2012
When we search on the Internet these days, we expect to be given a list of potential sites which will hold the answers we seek, be that a product, a specific data set, an answer to a question and so on. It is then down to us to seek the answers or research further until we find them. However, Google appears to be about to up the ante and head more towards providing direct answers to questions rather than links to sites where that answer may reside.
Potentially, this is huge.
For Google, it may mean that anywhere between 10 and 20% of all search queries could be answered directly within Google search, rather than on third party websites that currently pop up in the organic search results. This could have a drastic effect on traffic to websites, especially those who have not looked beyond the search engines to create broad spectrum marketing campaigns. Having all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea, and this change at Google may well prove it to those who have pitched everything at SEO and little to nothing at social media, mobile, PPC, article marketing, forum marketing, etc etc.
Optimising (SEO) may need to change in order to be more than just keyword rich, but also to be ‘answer rich’ ie to provide the answers that Google offers to searchers. Therefore, within the copy and content of a site, it may be necessary for the SEO expert to try to envisage more clearly exactly what answers are likely to be sought, and hence, the question(s) that may be in the mind of the searcher when entering the query.
On the plus side, trusted sites which continually create unique, quality content should have an easier time of it than those sites which duplicate other sources. Relevancy, creating author tags, correct labelling of content (as is required for Google shopping for instance), strong reasons for a user to stay within a site rather than return to Google, regular competitive analysis, and a need to co-ordinate marketing strategies towards Google all look likely to be required to ensure at least a modicum of success with Google’s semantic search.
There are likely to be some downsides in this ambitious proposal. There have been plenty of occasions where the algorithms have thrown up what could be considered irrelevant results; be these the type of results that Panda was introduced to eliminate, or inappropriate adverts, and Google will need to stick to facts first and produce consistently accurate results in that sphere (as it does now for simple search queries such as measurement conversions) or it could come under fire for losing yet more relevancy.
If you thought that the search engines’ algorithms were hard enough to optimise for, wait until you are up against AI (artificial intelligence) deciding what should show in the SERPs! Especially if/when the semantic search moves beyond factual e.g when is the full moon in April 2012? to the opinionated: e.g “Is SEO necessary?”
It would seem that scammers have been quick to jump on the Pinterest bandwagon, using fake Pinterest and Twitter accounts, harnessed to affiliate links, to generate revenue.
Pinterest will need to take action to prevent this becoming more widespread but the process for the scammers is little different to that which a genuine business can use to get the most out of Pinterest.
Firstly, you need people following you on Pinterest, and you need to be following others, plus taking an interest in what they are pinning. Tying this into other social media accounts too can help to widen your audience so link Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and so on to and from your Pinterest account.
Secondly, you need to post eye catching photos and images that are linked directly to a product or landing page, not to the home page of your website.
Thirdly, you need well-written copy on that product or landing page that entices people to buy and also to repin.
Pinterest as a marketing tool will not suit all businesses, just as other social networks cannot be all things to all men. However, if you are in the retail industry, Pinterest should be high on your list of properties to populate with product photos, as well as to engage with your potential customers. Hotels, restaurants, travel agents and accommodation providers are also discovering the value of Pinterest in reaching a wide audience, although it is still difficult to localise to reach the audience required.
If the scammers can make money on Pinterest, you should be able to as well by encouraging repins of your boards’ items. Why not run a monthly competition and offer a prize to one random repinner? Or create a special discount landing page for Pinterest users? Incentivise pinning in imaginative ways for great products and you should be able to use Pinterest as a cost-effective internet marketing tool.
You still often hear the saying “we need a social media strategy”, but I think, that to make the most of social media requires broader questions to be asked.
For example, a customer engagement or communications strategy or content strategy are really part of a social media strategy.
We believe you need to answer how you plan to engage customers with content as a core part of your social media strategy and it will support SEO too.
I think the definition from Joe Pulizzi, author of “Get Content, Get Customers” is hard to beat. He defines content marketing as:
“How a brand creates, delivers and governs original or curated content to attract and retain customers, positioning the brand as a credible expert and, ultimately, motivating a change in behaviour”
I define content marketing simply as:
“Managing content as an asset to achieve marketing goals of reaching, converting and engaging target audiences“.
For me, these are the reasons why content marketing is central to success online. So, to be successful, you need a plan for how content marketing can support your goals:
First and foremost you need a commitment to continued investment in content. Inbound marketing starts with considered, quality content. But this has to be a stream of quality content which is aligned with attracting customers and then engaging them based on different degrees of familiarity with you.
This content also needs a clear branded presence in a hub as shown in this content hub infographic I developed with Dan Bosomworth of Smart Insights:
The hub can be a blog, such as the Eloqua All About Revenue blog, or it can be a community sharing articles such as the American Express Open Forum or it can be a more familiar customer magazine as with the Asda Magazine.
Some further content marketing principles to consider based on what Joe Pulizzi of the Content Marketing Institute recommends are:
A report published this week by a cross party committee of MPs and peers recommended that legislation should be introduced to force Google to censor search results, particularly in relation to protecting privacy. The rise and rise of social networking and the Internet has meant that cases such as the super injunction cases last year have spread virally over social media – Twitter, Facebook, blogs etc. So, despite the law insisting that identities and personal details were not revealed, and the press bending over backwards to abide by the rulings, the news got out anyway. The Ryan Giggs super injunction was tweeted over 75,000 times before it finally became obvious that the injunction could not be made to work.
It was following this that the PM set up the cross party committee to investigate free speech and privacy. However, the recommendation to force Google et al to censor results is likely to come under fire.
The suggestion raises several issues.
Firstly, whilst it may currently be legislation regarding privacy, how easily could this legislation be amended to be more far-reaching? Censorship in any form bodes ill, and freedom of speech should be fought for. There is no reason for content that has been considered to be an invasion of privacy not to be removed, or for heartier self-regulation to take place, but attempting to prevent gossip – which appears intrinsic to human nature – is likely to continue to be an onerous task, and it is inevitable that we will see more and more online reputation management agencies appearing to protect brands and so on.
But should a search engine (or Facebook or Twitter) be forced into a level of censorship determined often only by a single judge? What if there is an appeal or what if the content should be released in the public interest? How could this possibly be policed and enforced?
As a spokesperson for Google said, “Requiring search engines to screen the content of their web pages would be like asking phone companies to listen in on every call made across their networks for potentially suspicious activity.”
The committee is arguing for protection of privacy laws to go beyond the current ‘press’ eg newspapers, magazines, TV etc and also include Twitter, Facebook, Google and so on. As we move into an age of higher bandwidth and hence more innovation, the likelihood is that new social networking sites and tools will continue to spring up on an almost hourly basis. Endeavouring to imagine or legislate for all new tools, apps, sites could prove not only burdensome but actually impossible.
How could such censorship affect businesses or brands? The vast majority of the high profile cases have concerned celebrities and many brands have had to distance themselves from their celeb endorsers after bad news has been leaked or made its way onto the Internet, where it can now spread far more quickly than ever before. Google currently offers the chance to report a page or offensive etc content, and the argument from the Big G is that no further action is required beyond the ‘victim’ (for want of a better word) requesting the removal of said content.
The vagaries of Google, as we all know, mean that frequently such requests appear to be ignored, or the process drags on interminably whilst the content just sits there in the SERPs. The protection of celebrities’ i.e. individuals’ privacy may need to come above protection of business and brands reputation but does existing legislation not already cover this without requiring to force censorship on some of the biggest sites in the world?
Do you feel that the UK government should have a say in what the search engines and social networks are permitted to show to UK audiences?
