| by Wayne Friedman, Yesterday, 10:59 AM | |
 Online Hispanic consumers tend to be younger than non-Hispanic consumers -- and have better and more positive responses to online advertising, according to comScore. The comScore study says 31% of U.S. Hispanics enjoy watching ad messages compared to 19% for non-Hispanic consumers. U.S. Hispanic also have higher expectations when it comes to entertaining ad messages, with 48% anticipating online ads to be entertaining compared to 39% for non-Hispanics. U.S. Hispanic consumers have higher recall -- 35% to non-Hispanic's 22%. Some 30% of the time, advertising is also more likely to influence Hispanic consumers' product decisions when buying for their children, compared to 15% of Non-Hispanics. "The U.S. Hispanic online marketplace is a fast-growing and potentially lucrative sector that marketers cannot ignore," stated Josh Chasin, chief research officer of comScore. "Online Hispanics are younger and more acculturated than their offline counterparts and they are quite receptive to advertising when it is sufficiently engaging. What's especially interesting is that engagement with advertising has more to do with narrative elements and storytelling than it does with actually running the advertisement in Spanish." Average Hispanic online consumers are younger than non-Hispanics by over three years -- 31 years old to 34.5 years old. The study also says 52% of Hispanics prefer English as their primary language, with 26.1% choosing bilingual and 21.9% preferring Spanish as their primary language. |
Friday, November 19, 2010
Hispanics More Receptive to Online Advertising
Monday, November 15, 2010
iPad Users More Likely to Cut Pay TV
A new survey from The Diffusion Group (TDG) finds that people who own iPads or are planning to purchased one in the new few months are significantly more likely than average adult broadband users to either downgrade or cancel their pay TV services. Nearly one third (33.9%) of iPad owners were to varying degrees likely to cancel their pay TV service in the next six months and about 12.9% of iPad owners were "highly likely" to cut the cord. In contrast, about 6.4% of people planning to buy iPads-a group TDG calls "the Intenders-and only 4.3% of all adult broadband users (4.3%) claimed they were highly likely to cut the cord. The survey also found 27.4% of iPad owners and 14.2% of the Intenders said they were "highly likely" to downgrade their pay TV services in the next six months. Only 10.0% of the all adult broadband users said they were highly likely to downgrade.
"Despite the fact that cord-cutting remains more widely discussed than carried out, forward-looking research
continue to accumulate in support of the hypothesis that specific groups of consumers are quickly warming to the idea," noted Michael Greeson, TDG founding partner and director of research in announcing the results. "Certainly this applies to iPad owners and Intenders."
Greeson also noted that major broadcasters and cable networks might view the results as a providing a rational for restricting their online offerings and iPad apps so that viewers are motivated to maintain existing pay TV relationships.
On the other hand, content creators looking to expand their over the top efforts might view the results as evidence of demand for iPad delivered content. Based on TDG research Greeson suggested that these content creators focus their over-the-top efforts on specific groups like iPad owners who seem more likely to discard their incumbent multichannel providers.
Survey: 22% of American Canceled or Cut Back Cable TV in Last Six Months
Another 21% Considered Curtailing TV Service, Harris Poll Finds
Penny-pinching consumers are still putting the hurt on cable: About one in five Americans canceled or scaled back their cable TV service in the last six months to save money, according to a new poll from research firm Harris Interactive. About 22% of respondents said they downgraded or eliminated their cable TV service, and another 21% considered
it over that time, Harris found. The online poll of 3,084 U.S. adults age 18 and older was conducted Oct. 11-18. The percentage of U.S. consumers who say they've cut back or eliminated cable hasn't changed in the last year, according to Harris. In February 2010, 22% of respondents affirmed cable cutbacks, while 21% did in October 2009. On the most recent survey, 28% of consumers 34 to 45 (Gen Xers) said they canceled or cut cable, followed by the 46-64 baby boomers (23%) and 18-33 Echo Boomers (22%). Of the 65-plus "matures" cohort, just 13% said they dropped or cut back cable TV.
Meanwhile, 17% of respondents said they canceled their landline phone service and are only using their cell phone, while another 17% have changed or canceled cell phone service.
The most popular money-saving measures on the Harris poll: 62% of U.S. consumers have been purchasing moregeneric brands in the last six months, and about 45% are brown-bagging lunch instead of purchasing it.
Implicatons of Facebook Email Client
Having successfully revolutionized online communication, Facebook reportedly wants a piece of that enduring, prerevolution
messaging channel -- email.
On Monday, the social network is expected to unveil a full-fledged web-based email client, along with personal
@facebook.com email addresses for users. And, as most industry watchers agree, such a development has
Facebook-sized implications.
"Referred to as 'Project Titan' among Facebook employees, the email revamp could address criticism about
deficiencies in the existing Messages product such as lack of easy forwarding, mass 'mark as read,' and attachment
uploading," suggests Inside Facebook.
"There's a huge amount of potential here," writes TechCrunch. "Facebook has the world's most popular photos
product, the most popular events product, and soon will have a very popular local deals product as well ... It can
tweak the design of its webmail client to display content from each of these in a seamless fashion (and don't forget
messages from games, or payments via Facebook Credits)." "While many see this as an attack on Gmail, the bigger
goal is likely to strengthen the ties (or chains) that bind Facebook to its core user base," according to GigaOm.
"The most significant thing about the possibility of a new Facebook email system is that Facebook would be
suddenly moving into the world of productivity, something which until now has been the antithesis of Facebook," All
Facebook writes. "In essence, a Facebook email service would mark a new era for the company, bringing it to the
forefront of digital communications.
Still, as PCWorld notes, any Facebook email client will have to be pretty impressive to compete with top providers.
"Google's Gmail, for example, is particularly innovative, offering handy features such as Priority Inbox, filtering and
labels, keyboard shortcuts, voice calling and a recently revised and improved contacts manager," PCWorld writes.
"If Facebook offers a plain vanilla Webmail service that tries to boast of robust spam filtering as a user feature, then
it may have a tough time convincing users to switch." However, perhaps working in Facebook's favor,
Technologizer believes: "Gmail, Hotmail, and Yahoo Mail are all hobbled a bit by their sheer venerability and deep
roots in traditional ways of doing things."
TrueCar.com Looks to Change Online Shopping
which focuses entirely on showing real-time pricing of vehicles from aggregated data it buys from dealerships
nationwide, is extending into the used car market this month.
The company plans to launch by year's end a Web site called ClearBook that likewise aggregates what other used
car owners are asking for their vehicles. ClearBook will vie against Kelley Blue Book (KBB), now owned by
AutoTrader.com, the National Automobile Dealers Association Guide (NADA) and Black Book (Hearst) guidebooks.
Scott Painter -- the founder and CEO who also founded, then sold, CarsDirect.com -- says his goal is to eliminate
lead-generation as a web model for the auto market. "Today most people use the Internet as way of researching,
and the Web gets an A-plus for disseminating good product information online," he says.
But he adds that while the traditional model for third-party sites is selling leads to dealers, he is hoping his model of
doing things -- taking a percentage of actual sales -- will be the wave of the future, and that showing live pricing
trends will also solve problems for dealers, and consumers.
For consumers, he says, pricing based on dealer data adds transparency to a notoriously murky process. "We all
have very little trust for car dealers. And I think if you examine why, it's because at end of day there is asymmetry in
terms of product valuation. The web has been great for product information but not as a source of transparency
about price."
Per Painter, pricing transparency as a central driver for a commerce web site helps dealers because they are getting
consumers through the site who are at the bottom of the purchase funnel; otherwise they wouldn't be comparing
prices. "Simply being online is no longer a marker for whether someone's in market," he says, adding that by the
time people are looking at what other dealers are charging, they are ready to pull the trigger, not just idly pricing.
"When most people are given a price from a dealer, they tend to call two or three other dealers to triangulate. We
have found that about 95% of these people are trying to make sure they are not getting screwed. And when
someone is looking for price confidence, it's one of the strongest indicators of in-marketness. It's one of the last
indicators before purchase."
Report: Mid-Roll Video Adoption Points
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Is the iPad Really the Savior of the Newspaper Industry?
Even before the iPad was revealed, analysts, pundits and the publishing industry were already heralding the tablet as the platform that would save the industry from declining readership and dropping revenue.The iPad’s high-res display, large screen, digital delivery and interactive capabilities were lauded as the next generation of tools that print publishers could use to woo their readers back into the fold.
Now, six months after the iPad’s launch, we thought it would be interesting to take a look at which newspapers have taken advantage of the digital platform, and the state of the market today.
We recently tested the apps ourselves and spoke with content creators and industry experts to get an overview of where newspaper iPad apps are — and where they might be headed in the future.
Adopting a New Way to Consume News
In order for the general public to consume their daily news on a tablet device, they have to own one. Although great things are promised for the consumer tablet, recent data from ABI Research suggests that at the current rate of sales, such devices won’t reach what’s considered “mass-market penetration” until 2013.
However, there are enough devices out there to make app building worthwhile. Apple sold 3 million iPads within 80 days of the product’s release in the U.S., with the most recent sales figures (dating back from July) coming in at 3.27 million sold. Wall Street analysts Bernstein Research suggest that the iPad is enjoying the fastest adoption rate of a consumer electronics gadget ever — even overtaking the DVD player and Apple stable-mate the iPhone ().
)Forecasters at the Harrison Group found that 13% of all American consumers showed “interest” in buying a tablet device between now and next September, with potential sales of up to 15 million units. In fact, some reports suggest that the iPad’s popularity could affect PC and laptop sales figures as consumers opt for the touchscreen tablet over a new netbook or upgrading an old PC.
)And the good news for content creators on the tablet platform is that consumers are hungry. The Harrison Group survey found that tablet users spend nearly 75% more time reading newspapers and newspaper articles, and 25% more time reading books. Those surveyed were apparently so convinced by the digital delivery and form factor, that 81% of tablet owners believe that it is inevitable that all forms of publications will eventually be produced almost exclusively in a digital format.
Establishing Pricing and Attracting Readers
So what is the current state of the newspaper app market for the iPad? Six months after the iPad’s launch, more than 900 apps populate the “News ()” category in the App Store () in both the U.S. and the UK. News is a broad category, however, and it includes feed readers, other types of content aggregators, websites’ iPad apps, and even magazine apps.
Out of those options, only the USA Today, The New York Times and a trial version of The Telegraph apps are free. The others require payment to either download or access full content, making them a “personal choice luxury” rather than a must-have download, considering how many free options exist. (It should be noted that while The New York Times app is currently free, you will need an account to access all of the content once the paywall goes up in January 2011).
So why is this the case? Surely struggling publishing companies would do well to attract as many users to their apps as possible in order to increase brand loyalty and make money from mobile advertising.
Paul Gillin, a social marketing consultant and author of the Newspaper Death Watch blog suggests that, in time, apps could be a “significant revenue stream” as the platform grows. He says that newspaper companies are wary of falling into the same trap they did when free online versions of their papers debuted, making it hard for a pay structure to be introduced at a later date.
This assertion is backed up by data from the Association of Online Publishers “Content & Trends Census 2010.” The census revealed that apps are seen as “the most significant route for mobile Internet () revenue opportunities,” according to the UK publishing companies (not limited to newspapers) that took part. In fact, 61% expect to see significant revenue from subscription services, compared to 55% via sponsorship and 46% via in-app advertising.
The same AOP research also reveals that while 16% of online publishers currently have paid-for iPad apps, another 60% are planning to introduce one in the next 12 months.
“Publishers are establishing pricing from the start,” says Tim Cain, head of research and insight at the AOP. “iPad apps are being seen differently [than] mobile apps. It’s thought that people value them differently and will be prepared to pay.”
Readers Respond to Subscriptions and Pay Up
So just how many people are prepared to pay, and how many are using the apps? Different companies have different policies on revealing their download figures and are generally even more secretive about subscription stats.
We can, however, note a few choice numbers. The WSJ for iPad has been downloaded more than 650,000 times since its launch and has “thousands” of paying subscribers. The FT’s iPad Edition option has seen 400,000 downloads and is credited for driving 10% of all FT digital subscriptions since its launch. Meanwhile, USA Today’s free app has had a slightly higher download figure of over a million.
If companies are guarded about download stats and subscription figures, they are even more guarded about how those relate to revenue. This is not the case for the Financial Times, however, as Ben Hughes, the paper’s deputy chief executive recently revealed to The Guardian that its iPad app’s 400,000 subscribers have helped the app reach £1 million (approximately $1.5 million) in advertising revenue since May.
And previous reports note that in-app iAds are fetching as much as five times the price of online advertising, with click-through rates reported to be significantly higher (15% versus 0.10% in a recent NYTM campaign from JPMorgan Chase & Co) on the tablet device than a website.
iPad Readers Are a New Market
These stats show that consumers are obviously downloading and using these apps, but which consumers? Are the papers cannibalizing their own print and online audiences with shiny new apps? Or are the App Store offerings opening up a different market to the titles?
“The iPad definitely provides a valuable platform for newspapers to engage their readers in a new way and, in many cases, to appeal to a different set of readers,” says Dena Levitz, manager of digital strategies for the Newspaper Association of America. “Mobile is going to be a growth area going forward, and tablets are one exciting subset of that larger trend.”
The Dow Jones & Company’s senior director of corporate communications Ashley S. Huston says the Wall Street Journal’s plan is to offer content wherever readers are. “We know that readers consume news and information on multiple devices … The iPad app complements our existing print and digital offerings with an experience created specifically for the iPad.”
USA Today, meanwhile, notes the obvious portability the platform offers, making it a good choice for those away from home. Matt Jones, vice president of mobile strategy and operations for Gannett/USA Today tells us: “Our target is the early and middle stage tech adopter, frequent traveler and general news/sports/entertainment enthusiast.”
Despite the comprehensive content in the Financial Times iPad Edition, the publishers view the app as a “companion product,” and notes the value of easy global distribution in places where it’s more difficult to distribute a print copy, according to Steve Pinches, lead product development manager at FT.com.
So far we’ve only considered national titles. Regional newspapers, arguably the hardest-hit markets, could take advantage of the iPad’s potential too, like UK publishing company KOS Media did with its free Kent News for iPad, which was released in August.
With national publications seeing an increase in click-through rates on its in-app advertisements, it would make sense then that location-based advertising might see similar success. And that success could be replicated by local papers. They should view the tablet platform as the potential savior it was initially billed as.
Newspapers Must Adapt Again to New Technology
After looking at a variety of newspaper iPad apps, our main complaint — and we’re generalizing across the entire market — is that they don’t take enough advantage of the iPad’s wowing capabilities.
This view is shared to a certain extent by Roger Fidler, the program director for digital publishing for the Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri. He is organizing the RJI National iPad News Survey “to better understand how people are consuming news on the iPad and readers’ expectations for news apps.”
“I’ve long believed that utilitarian tablets like the iPad would evolve into the 21st century equivalent of the printing press; and, as such, would be vital to the digital transformation of newspapers and magazines,” says Fidler.
Fidler says that newspaper iPad apps need to offer a new visual format that blends the “relaxed reading modality of print with the dynamic interactive modality of online media.” It should be differentiated from print and online editions and offer tablet-specific content — all things he doesn’t think most apps are doing very well.
The solution could be found in a new “hybrid newspaper app” suggests Fidler, in which “automated sections with continuously updated news stories and more visually rich magazine-like sections created by editors and designers could coexist.” The Reynolds Journalism Institute is experimenting with exactly that kind of new publishing model.
The NAA also acknowledges the need for newspapers to “differentiate” content, and digital strategist Levitz says that consumers read longer-form content on the iPad, and they really enjoy the high quality of the visual images on the screen. She thinks newspapers can thrive in the tablet space if they take advantage of the device’s capabilities.
So is the future of print to be found in touch-screens? In the immediate future it certainly seems that publishing companies are going to be jumping on the app wagon, but how many of them will go the distance is questionable. You’ve got to think that targeted papers such as the WSJ, or the FT for business types, or geographically relevant titles have got the brightest future in the app market because they offer something that can’t be found via generic news feeds or readers.
“I would expect to see the iPad and the dozens of competing products planned for this year providing revenue for newspapers either through subscriptions or advertising sponsorships,” says Levitz. “Still, we expect tablet apps will be one part of a broad portfolio of products which will continue to include print products in some form, web-based products and other emerging products. Newspapers will continue to be the dominant local sales and content franchises reaching a range of audience segments through multiple media channels.”
The new sparkle of the iPad will keep the newspaper app market buoyant only for so long, and unless Fidler’s “hybrid newspaper app” advice is heeded, consumers will grow tired of the app-ified newspaper just as they have grown tired of previous formats before that. Newspaper Death Watch’s Paul Gillin has a grim take on the future.
“Will tablets save the mainstream publishing industries as we know them?” he asks. “No. There is still a lot of pain to come as publishers wind down their print operations over the next 10 to 15 years. However, tablets could present a source of some circulation revenue growth that helps ease the pain somewhat while that transition occurs.”
So, with more and more ways to consume free news content, is the traditional newspaper’s time up, regardless of platform? Or is the tablet the shot in the arm that the industry needs to really innovate and grab consumer’s interest once again? Have your say in the comments below.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Google's Search Has Changed
New Place Search Shows Google’s Commitment To Local
Oct 27, 2010 at 1:59pm ET by Greg Sterling
Today Google formally rolls out its new presentation of local results, called “Place Search.” It offers a dramatic change to the look and feel of SERPs on Google.com. The first and most obvious change is that the “7 Pack” is gone. And there appear to be some fairly major SEO implications, which should provide many hours of enjoyment for the SEO community as it tries to reverse engineer the algorithm.The changes won’t come as a surprise to close Google watchers. A number of people previously spotted Google testing these pages in the wild and have written about them in some detail, including Chris Silver Smith, Mike Blumenthal, David Mihm and Andrew Shotland. Google sees the changes as an extension or evolution of universal search in the local context.
Google said that the algorithm has been improved and refined for Place Search. We also shouldn’t see any more of the “mapspam” that has plagued the 7-Pack in the past. Previously the local and general search algorithms were distinct. I asked whether they had now been consolidated or merged in this new release and was told “yes.”
On to the physical SERP changes. The best way to make this concrete is to show the “before” and “after” pages.
Place Search
Immediately below are two screenshots for the results to the query “San Francisco Dentist.” The first page below is an “old” SERP with my annotations. Below AdWords comes the “7 Pack,” which is followed by mostly local web results. This was the “old” arena for third party local SEO.
Here’s the new page for the same local dentist query:
Visually the page has changed quite a bit. The map has been moved to the right column and “floats” or scrolls down the page as users move down results. The 7-Pack is gone, as mentioned, and a richer presentation of local results with images fills the entire SERP.
Selected third party sites referencing the particular dentist are “clustered” with the listing. From my spot checking, these clustered sites appear to be mostly the same sites that appear on Place Pages under “reviews from around the web.”
As mentioned Place Pages now appear with each listing on SERPs. This will raise the profile of Place Pages considerably and increase usage accordingly.
In my quick checking yesterday it seemed that I was seeing the map and local results appear more frequently than I remember for ambiguous or category queries without geo-modifiers. I asked about this and Google said that there should be no more local results and no fewer web results after these changes. However for this particular dentist query some of the general web results in the “before” version appear to be “missing” or replaced by local listings. I clicked through to pages 2 and 3 and didn’t find them.
I did, however, find the same web results continue to show up in response to a query for “sushi.”
Places Mode
In cases of ambiguous queries, if Google isn’t sure whether users are seeking local information, there’s another type of result that will appear, which Google refers to as “Places Mode.” This SERP may show some local information (indicated by the red pushpins) intermixed with general web results. Here’s an example for the query “museums”:
To see just local results, you can now click the “Places” icon in the left vertical nav, which replaces “Maps.” Previously, clicking Maps took users directly into Google Maps. Like the other icons Places is now a filter that triggers new results and keeps users on the Google.com SERP.
Here’s the same “museums” result after being filtered by Places, which brings up the all local Place Search results:
Implications of Place Search
How should we think about Place Search and its impact on users and “the market”? Is it a major change? Is it merely incremental? Beyond the significant visual changes to the page, as I suggested I think there are going to be some fairly major SEO implications flowing out of this.Local SEO was starting to focus on “getting into the 7 Pack.” That’s all gone now. Now, fully fleshed out Place Pages will assume much greater importance, as will being present and reviewed in the various sites featured in the “clustered” links. I’m sure someone will put together a pretty comprehensive list quickly but Yelp is one of the winners here, as are Citysearch, Insiderpages, Urbanspoon, TripAdvisor, Yahoo Local, Judysbook and others depending on the category. I will leave more nuanced SEO discussions to others more knowledgeable than I.
I’ll say one more thing however. Third party publishers (such as local and vertical directories) that had been relying on Google for traffic found some time ago that the available space for their links was diminished by the 7-Pack. Now that the 7-Pack is gone how will they be affected? Unfortunately for them they may be shut out almost entirely unless they’re among the clustered third party links associated with each listing.
Take the following example for “Denver Plumbers.” The first screen is the “old” page, with the highlighted section showing a link to directory Superpages.
The new Place Search features only local businesses on the first page. Again, unless publishers are among the clustered links they will likely have to resort to paid search now to gain exposure on page one of Google. I haven’t had time to do extensive or systematic checking on this, but I would imagine this pattern carries through across all local categories.
Upon further investigation I was able to find a couple of instances where directory sites sill appeared so the impact on local publishers may not be quite as severe as it appears at first blush. In the context of a search for “Chicago Dentists,” for example, I found a Yelp and Superpages link above the local results:
Google’s Commitment to Local (and Mobile)
In the near future these SERPs will also come to mobile search. But more generally the changes reflect Google’s commitment to local and its overall importance in Google’s strategy and product development.Google began its discussion with us yesterday with a repeat of its previously released statistic: “More than 20 percent of searches on Google are related to location.” The key words in that sentence are “more than.”
By making local results (and Place Pages) more prominent than even they were before, users will likely respond with more local queries and rely on Google more heavily for local information. The overall volume and percentage of queries on Google seeking local information may in turn increase.
Stepping back and looking at the totality of Google’s efforts in local and local-mobile I’m struck by the scope of the commitment that Google has made. From Android and local-mobile search to Place Pages improvements, to the new simplified Boost ads, Click2Call, location extensions and expandable map ads in mobile — and now Place Search — it’s more than impressive, it’s totally comprehensive.
What Google’s Place Page Update Means To Local Link Building
What Google’s Place Page Update Means To Local Link Building
Nov 2, 2010 at 8:43am ET by Eric Ward
Google’s Place Pages in the SERPs have everyone freaked out. If you haven’t read Greg Sterling’s excellent piece New Place Search Shows Google’s Commitment To Local, I highly recommend it. In addition to the potential SEO impact Greg discusses, there are a couple key points specific to link building that are worth making.
As with any Google update, there will be certain types of high trust merit based links that will not be affected whatsoever. Google’s new Place Search does not suddenly make links earned by merit somehow have less merit. A diamond is still a diamond even if it’s surrounded by other gemstones, a cubic zirconium, or a moon rock.
As long as your link seeking targets were chosen based on their ability to build credibility, brand and/or click traffic, nothing changes. The links you needed before are still needed now, unless you were just chasing rank via link building, in which case I strongly suggest you change your linking strategies.
That said, there are definite local linking strategies that local bricks and mortar businesses should be looking at now more than ever. I’m working on a more in-depth article for Link Week that will detail the process I use to create a local linking strategy. Look for it in my next column.
As I mentioned on Greg’s post, the big winner with the Google Place Page update is the local business owner. Why? Because the local business owner has had it rough so far, having to figure out exactly what a “web presence” meant. Do they have their own site? A blog? A Facebook page? Foursquare? Coupons? Twitter? Online Yellow Page inclusion? A local business could spend a lot of money and still have no chance of showing up in a Google search. I’m not saying all these strategies are useless, but the truth is they are not for everyone.
Call me a heretic, but not every business needs a standalone website, and a local business no longer needs to be held hostage by a hundred online options and choices if all they wanted is to be listed in Google results for Knoxville locksmith (notice 5 out of the ten have no website at all, just Google Place Pages). A website is an option, not mandatory.
I personally love this change and it makes sense. Why should Google direct the searcher to a third party directory that charges for inclusion, has marginal content but a huge SEO budget, when Google can simply direct the searcher to where they were headed anyway. Now go ahead and call me a Google kool-aid guzzler, as you always do and I almost always am, but explain to me how this is a bad thing? This is brilliant.
The challenge will come soon enough. After all, once everyone has a Place Page, what signals will Google use to rank those Place Pages? Will a business that has spent tens of thousands of dollars or more on a great website find themselves out positioned by a business that has no website at all but who does have a claimed Place Page with full business details filled out? And if that happens is it fair?
Does having invested in a website somehow mean Google should reward you for that investment over some company that only has a free Place Page? Do you need to start linking to your Place Page URL via your existing website? Do you link build for your Place Page, and if so, where?
These are questions I’m glad I don’t have to answer today. But all of us link builders and linking strategists better be able to answer these questions ASAP.
As with any Google update, there will be certain types of high trust merit based links that will not be affected whatsoever. Google’s new Place Search does not suddenly make links earned by merit somehow have less merit. A diamond is still a diamond even if it’s surrounded by other gemstones, a cubic zirconium, or a moon rock.
As long as your link seeking targets were chosen based on their ability to build credibility, brand and/or click traffic, nothing changes. The links you needed before are still needed now, unless you were just chasing rank via link building, in which case I strongly suggest you change your linking strategies.
That said, there are definite local linking strategies that local bricks and mortar businesses should be looking at now more than ever. I’m working on a more in-depth article for Link Week that will detail the process I use to create a local linking strategy. Look for it in my next column.
As I mentioned on Greg’s post, the big winner with the Google Place Page update is the local business owner. Why? Because the local business owner has had it rough so far, having to figure out exactly what a “web presence” meant. Do they have their own site? A blog? A Facebook page? Foursquare? Coupons? Twitter? Online Yellow Page inclusion? A local business could spend a lot of money and still have no chance of showing up in a Google search. I’m not saying all these strategies are useless, but the truth is they are not for everyone.
Call me a heretic, but not every business needs a standalone website, and a local business no longer needs to be held hostage by a hundred online options and choices if all they wanted is to be listed in Google results for Knoxville locksmith (notice 5 out of the ten have no website at all, just Google Place Pages). A website is an option, not mandatory.
I personally love this change and it makes sense. Why should Google direct the searcher to a third party directory that charges for inclusion, has marginal content but a huge SEO budget, when Google can simply direct the searcher to where they were headed anyway. Now go ahead and call me a Google kool-aid guzzler, as you always do and I almost always am, but explain to me how this is a bad thing? This is brilliant.
The challenge will come soon enough. After all, once everyone has a Place Page, what signals will Google use to rank those Place Pages? Will a business that has spent tens of thousands of dollars or more on a great website find themselves out positioned by a business that has no website at all but who does have a claimed Place Page with full business details filled out? And if that happens is it fair?
Does having invested in a website somehow mean Google should reward you for that investment over some company that only has a free Place Page? Do you need to start linking to your Place Page URL via your existing website? Do you link build for your Place Page, and if so, where?
These are questions I’m glad I don’t have to answer today. But all of us link builders and linking strategists better be able to answer these questions ASAP.
What Should You Do About Place Pages Right Now?
I’m advising all clients with a local presence to claim their business/Place Page. Most already have. As for the specific signals that are being used to determine the order or position of the Place Pages, there are a couple key points.- Read David Mihm’s astoundingly good Local Search Ranking Factors, and Chris Silver Smith’s Anatomy & Optimization Of A Local Business Profile.
- Don’t be fooled by anyone telling you your local rank is dictated by a specific signal, especially if that signal is the number of reviews your business has. You do not need to go wild with reviews to rank. Reviews are game-able, and thus not a good long term signal.
- If you don’t have a website, you shouldn’t consider all your problems solved by Place Pages. Place Pages could go away as quickly as they appeared, and even if they don’t, they can’t replace a website’s ability to present additional information in the exact way you want to. A Place Page by itself is not, IMO, always a good search result. More information is often needed, and your own website can provide it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)