I recently read a light-hearted post on searchengineland.com and was reminded of my own experience where my unflinching trust was placed in Google’s palms. For those that are unfamiliar with the aforementioned article, Matt McGee refers to the St. Rose of Lima Church in New Jersey which has suffered from a misrepresentative positioning on Google maps, along with a misleading search query suggestion that directs patrons elsewhere. Rev. Michael Trainor explains that in some instances the map discrepancy led to mothers of the brides getting lost and causing delays to the start of wedding ceremonies.

My story does not involve coffins being delivered to wrong funeral services or brides marrying the wrong grooms but, at the time, the stress levels were comparable! Alex Wares and I had organised a client lunch meeting to discuss the progress of the project and had asked the client to suggest a suitable restaurant. The suggestion was Nottingdales; an Italian style café-restaurant local to where the client is based in Notting Hill, West London. “No problem”, we thought.

The evening before, I printed out a map for myself, got the post code from the London Eating webpage and forwarded it to Alex as we were coming from different directions. Both Alex and I have smart phones (being the tech savvy new media types that we are!) and assumed that if we got lost en-route we could Google Maps ourselves out of trouble.

Inevitably, we each arrived at the target destinations, could not see the restaurant and resorted to our phones. I assumed I was at least close to the destination as I was directly on top of the Landmark icon – see point B (even though I have been to the House of Commons and not met Glenda Jackson!). Strangely, Alex was somewhere completely different   around a kilometre away (near Ladbroke Grove) and I attributed this to his poor map reading skills, rather than the ineptitude of Google Maps/ London Eating/ myself.

A flurry of phone calls to the increasingly impatient client, several hasty web searches and a sprinted mile later and I arrive 20 minutes late. Panting and dripping with sweat, I spent the subsequent 10 minutes apologising for my tardiness, for Alex’s tardiness, for my dripping wet shirt and bright red face. Alex arrived shortly after with a similar story and sequence of apologies.

So, what went wrong? A combination of events stemmed from an unquestioning and misplaced trust of the internet and in particular Google.

Cause 1: Google placing Nottingdales nowhere near where Nottingdales actually is, as well as cementing the incorrect location with a Landmark icon.

Cause 2: London Eating having the wrong post code for Nottingdales and sending Alex to the wrong side of Ladbroke Grove.

What is the moral of the story? What did I learn from this experience? Well, firstly, don’t trust Google Maps. Many listings are placed dynamically based on post code and are not corroborated by the business owner. Many businesses upon realising this, add a new and correct map listing, but leave the incorrect listing live. Secondly, if you are to rely on Google Maps, expect them to be inaccurate… And leave 20 minutes early!

Google Maps are Rubbish is a post from: Response Marketing Blog - Search Engine Marketing by Mediarun

Unquestionably, many of the changes that Google has made to Adwords over the last 18 – 24 months have been to the benefit of its users. As a PPC management company, we know as well as anyone the impact that ad extensions (for example) can have on CTRs and conversion rates; ergo users are finding paid results more and more relevant. However – and call me a cynic – I would argue that Google’s latest changes to Adwords are purely for the benefit of advertisers, and hence to the benefit of Google’s bottom line.

Google is refining the art of disguise, to the benefit of its advertisers.

So, let me explain my cynicism…

Google is making its ads much more similar in appearance to the organic listings. Around 70-80% (depending on your sources) of search engine users ONLY use organic listings, so there is logic in disguising the paid listings as organic to trap the less savvy searchers. But how exactly has Google done it?

1. Combining the Ad Title with Ad Copy Line 1

Since 1^st March 2011, advertisers can now have their ads display on three lines instead of four. By correctly punctuating the ad title and first line of ad copy, ads will cleverly display the two fields as one elongated ad title (much like an organic listing – clever, no?), with ad copy line 2 appearing as an organic meta description beneath.

2. Lower Case-Only Display URLs

Previously advertisers could choose to display their domain names with capital letters to emphasise their brand within a domain, for example; www.MediaRunSearch.co.uk/Blog. The change prevents advertisers from doing this, so all domain names appear in lower case and URL extensions appear as per the destination URL, again just like the organic listings.

3. The Cessation of “Sponsored Links”

This change happened on 5^th November 2010. Whereas in the past, the box for PPC ads was titled “Sponsored Links”, they are now simply referred to as “Ads”. This seemingly innocuous alteration has nonetheless resulted in a 9.7% increase in total clicks (click here for source) .

4. The Background Colour

Ok so, perhaps this doesn’t make the sponsored links look organic… Originally blue, Google changed the background colour of Adwords ads to yellow (and since pink and then back to yellow again!). Presumably this is Google taking measures to avoid ad burnout and to combat the “ad blindness” that causes so many of us to simply disregard the places on a page we know ads to be.

In summary, Google has a triumvirate of parties to please. It must walk a line between providing its users with the most relevant and useful search results, appeasing its advertisers with high ROI and lastly increasing its own revenue.  I would argue that these latest changes in Adwords represent the most revenue-centric changes they’ve done in a while. There is no real impact on the quality of the users’ experience. Instead, the losers in these changes are the websites in the natural listings who are surrendering clicks to the advertisers. And it’s hard to see on what basis they can complain.

Thanks to Africa for use of the image.

Google PPC Changes in Light of the Farmer Update is a post from: Response Marketing Blog - Search Engine Marketing by Mediarun

So, first things first; what was Google Property (or “Google Real Estate” for the rest of the world)? In simplest terms, it worked as an aggregator add-on to Google Maps, in which properties available for sale and rent were plotted over a map. Estate agents and private vendors alike could use the Google Base API to list their property location along with basic information such as price, contact details and general info about the property itself.

London's acne is clearing up with the departure of Google's Property Search.

Logically, this is a product that should have really taken off. All good TV property programmes recite the mantra “location, location, location”, ergo, assuming a buyer knows their desired location, a geo-targeted aggregator would provide substantial benefits to both buyers and vendors alike. Combining the property search results with Google Street View results would also allow buyers to investigate a property and its surroundings without leaving the house or lifting the phone. The online property market is already massive with comparison sites like FindAProperty.com, RightMove.co.uk and Zoopla.co.uk leading the way with property search innovation. Google Property, if positioned correctly, had the potential to outperform each of these sites given it’s global reach and loyal customer base.

So, if the demand and potential were so great, why did it fail?

According to its blog, Google cites “low usage…excellent property search tools on real estate websites…[and] the retirement of the Google Base API” as the three main reasons for the cessation of Property search.

I would argue the main reason for low usage of Google Property is it’s obscurity. Unlike Places, Shopping, News and other Google products, Property search results do not appear in universal, blended listings in organic SERPs. The property function is hidden away deep within Google’s maps page, obscured from view within a dropdown, meaning a user must a) already be aware of the portal’s existence and b) know where to find it. Additionally, Google were very conservative with their marketing of the new functionality, relying solely on Adwords listings to raise awareness to advertisers. They did little, if anything to raise awareness to potential buyers.

It is true that the retirement of the Base API would cause some difficulties in uploading new properties. Equally, there are other similarly sophisticated search tools hosted on other real estate websites. However, one would have to be pretty naive to assume that, without proper promotion and integration, Google Property would not generate enough interest to substantiate and justify its existence.

That said, the opportunity and potential market for a large scale property search function is far too large and Google far too greedy for them to abandon Property altogether. The cynic in me tells me that Google are already working on some real estate themed super plan with which they will dominate the global real estate marketplace for decades to come. Strangely, the realist in me says something similar…

Easy Come Easy Go: What Happened to Google’s Property Search? is a post from: Response Marketing Blog - Search Engine Marketing by Mediarun

So, first things first; what are Hotpot and Places? Let’s start with Facebook Places.

Facebook failed in their attempts to buy Foursquare in 2010 and instead chose to develop Places, which is effectively the same system, minus the somewhat childish badges and “mayoral” elements. For those of you still scratching your heads, Facebook Places users can “check in” using their Smartphone, letting their Facebook friends know their current location. Many of my [and presumably your] Facebook friends do this already ad nauseam using status updates, though checking in using Places opens users up to a world of offers and discounts from web-savvy local businesses. Checking in at a given coffee shop may present you with the opportunity for 2 for 1 coffee deals or a 10% discount, for example. This new relationship is mutually beneficial – users can have friends recommend places to them, whilst businesses have their offers promoted through their customers social connections.

Still with me? Good. Now for Google Hotpot…

Hotpot is an extension to Google Places; it is essentially a local recommendation engine that recommends local businesses to you based on factors including your own personal likes and dislikes and friends’ suggestions. Hotpot users can provide ratings and reviews of localised business (restaurants, bars, retailers etc) using a Smartphone or the Hotpot interface on a desktop. Once signed in, a user can see their friends’ recommendations on relevant search results – for example, if John visits the Angel pub in Islington and submits a review, when his friends search for “Pubs in Islington”, John’s review will display beneath the Angel pub’s business listing. As Hotpot’s user’s profiles expand – by adding more friends and by adding more of their own reviews – more recommendations will be sent to them and more of their friends will see their recommendations.

This personalisation of Google’s search results mixed with the movement of Facebook towards local businesses blurs the line between social networking and search. We have already seen convincing evidence linking social media mentions and trending with [albeit temporary] SERP rankings (a case study from Magners springs to mind) and these latest developments blur the boundary further. How much more personalised can search become?

Google Hotpot vs. Facebook Places – How search has become social is a post from: Response Marketing Blog - Search Engine Marketing by Mediarun

This is all well and good, but over the last few months I’ve noticed, in many of my PPC accounts, CTRs dropping noticeably from location based keywords that have an average position of below 4. Why is this? Could this be related to the changes to Google Places?

Firstly, let’s revisit the changes. To trigger Google places results, a user must search for a location based keyword, a good wintery example being “boiler repair London”.

Google will then display results alongside a map of the location queried. But how do these new results differ from previous results?

1)      The map itself

Previously the map appeared in the main body of SERPs with a list of up to 8 businesses on the right hand side. Now the map appears in a smaller box on the right hand side, with the business listings commanding more space in the main SERP body.

2)      Company details, citations and reviews

Previously, only the company name would display next to the map. Now the full address, phone number and customer reviews/ ratings appear alongside the company name.

3)      Some listings shown as organic listings

Places results are often displayed exactly like regular organic listings, with the addition of a plot on the map. This allows Places listings to display meta descriptions, sitelinks and customer reviews.

“Plumber London” serves as a good example to illustrate this point.

On the surface, these changes seem logical and beneficial to both local businesses and search users. But looking deeper, could there be an ulterior motive for some of these changes? Specifically looking at the changes to the map itself, what effect will this have on Adwords listings for Google and its customers?

The new map shifts Adwords ads that are ranked 4 or lower down the page. When a user scrolls down the page, the map stays put and hides many of the ads. Has Google shot itself in the foot? Surely this restricted visibility for its advertisers would result in fewer Adwords clicks and therefore reduced revenues for Google?

The counter argument is that by hiding ads that appear on the right hand side, Google is making the top 3 sponsored links slots much more lucrative and creating more intense competition. Ergo, advertisers will be willing to increase their CPC bids to guarantee top positions and better visibility. With better CTRs for top 3 sponsored listings, combined with higher CPC bids, Google itself will surely be the main beneficiary of the improved Places listings.

If this indeed a[nother] shrewd business manoeuvre from Google, how ethical is it? Surely this method hands PPC power back to the larger companies with larger marketing budgets, making it difficult for smaller companies to run effective Adwords campaigns with their relatively limited budgets. (Plus it makes my job more difficult when I have to tell clients that we should double our CPC bids to get the same traffic volumes!)

Google’s priority has always been to provide its users with the best, most relevant and useful results possible. These latest developments certainly improve user experience, offer useful details and can help users make informed decisions. What concerns me is that Google seems to be forgetting about the little guy.

Do you own a small/ local business? If so, what impact (if any) have you noticed on your Adwords accounts?

Google Places usability vs. geo-targeted PPC is a post from: Response Marketing Blog - Search Engine Marketing by Mediarun

As Google evolved and developed its universal search methodology, opportunities arose for small businesses to compete with well established organisations for SERP positions on competitive keywords. Google Maps (now called “Places”) allowed local businesses to generate overnight exposure from historically competitive terms, delivering qualified, targeted traffic. Naturally, as awareness increased, keyword spamming and rule bending became rife as businesses sought a competitive advantage. This was most evident in trade service industries (plumbers, electricians, locksmiths etc) i.e. companies that could exploit Google’s maps to highlight areas that their service is offered in, rather than where their company is physically located.

Initially Google, perhaps pre-occupied with making public examples of household name rule-benders (Ocean Finance, BMW, for example), was slow to penalise map spammers. However, Google is always as keen as mustard to protect the integrity of their results pages, so the question of penalisation was always “when” rather than “if”.

In 2010, Places’ quality guidelines were rephrased and more stringent quality control methods employed. Google had begun to take a stand against those seeking to gain an advantage from bending the rules. Over the last 12 months numerous small businesses have had offending listings removed for discretions including stuffing keywords into their business name, using fraudulent business addresses and using one address several times. So, how do small businesses use Places to full advantage without any risk of penalisation? Simple…

1. One listing per registered address

2. Only registered business addresses – alas, no longer does your mum’s house count as a registered business address.

3. The business name should be exactly that – not a list of the services you offer.

4. Make use of the 5 categories – ignore Google’s suggestions and type in all relevant keyphrases

Follow these simple steps and remain at the top of the Places tree for the foreseeable future and, considering the latest changes Google have made, get even more from your Places account.

Changes… what changes?

Well, the introduction of ad extensions into Adwords allows users to link their Adwords campaigns with their Places accounts – displaying your map locations within your PPC ads. Though still in its infancy, this has already been proven to improve CTR, traffic relevance and, by proxy, conversion rates.

Before: Listing of Google maps within the natural search listings

After: Listing of Google maps within Paid results

Secondly, the layout and positioning of the listings and map itself has changed. Previously, the map featured in the main body of organic listings with only the business name visible. Nowadays, the map appears on the right hand side concealing Adwords ads (somewhat strangely!). Business names, descriptions, logos and customer reviews all appear as natural listings and dominate the space at the top of the SERPs.

Ultimately, in its quest for the most relevant search results, Google has taken note of the success of Places and rewarded ethical users with the gift of SERP exposure.

Getting the most out of Google Places is a post from: Response Marketing Blog - Search Engine Marketing by Mediarun