Go to Top

Own Page One Search Engine Visibility Blog

Pure Visibility to Hold Mobile Marketing Sessions at EMU’s Search Marketing Workshop

Pure Visibility is once again taking part in Eastern Michigan University’s Search Marketing Workshop. Eric Wortman will be speaking during the “Establishing a Mobile Presence” and “Creating an Effective Mobile Campaign” sessions. The workshop will be held Friday, November 16th at the Eagle Crest Conference Center in Ypsilanti, Michigan.

The 2012 Workshop

The workshop, now in its second year, provides “powerful search and mobile marketing strategies” from an expert lineup of speakers. Mike Lorenc, Industry Head of Ticket and Events at Google, and Chad Wiebesick, Director of Social Media and Interactive Marketing for MEDC, will be the keynote speakers.

Eric Wortman, a Pure Visibility Pay Per Click analyst specializing in social and mobile, will use real world examples of mobile campaigns he helped develop. What campaigns require a mobile strategy? Are you ready to target mobile? How do mobile customers differ from others? These questions and more will be covered throughout the two sessions.

Event Details

The Search Marketing Workshop will have 13 speakers and two tracks to choose from. Breakfast and lunch are provided. Registration is $40. To sign up visit www.thesearchmarketingworkshop.com. Use the promo code “SEM2012″ to get 25% off your registration. Follow #SearchMarketing12 for the latest updates.

Highlights from the 2011 Workshop

Linda Girard, CEO of Pure Visibility, speaking at The 2011 Search Marketing Workshop

SEM Wars: Episode 1, content developed for The 2011 Search Marketing Workshop

 

Where Do Search and Social Stand in 2012? SEMPO State of Search Report

The 2012 SEMPO State of Search Marketing Report, published by Econsultancy, was released earlier in September. The report, now in its eighth year, provides valuable market data by surveying over 900 respondents from companies and agencies in 36 different countries.

SEMPO State of Search

From the report, SEMPO and Econsultancy project that the North American search engine marketing industry will reach $26.8 billion in 2013, an increase of more than $10 billion since 2010.

Industry Data

The report shows that marketers are continuing to want more measurement and reporting. As search and social spending increases, companies are paying closer attention to the returns generated by Internet marketing.

With new channels and opportunities becoming available, companies list cost, time, and the ability to manage in-house as the biggest barriers to entry. For agencies, having effective project management can lead to more business. Being able to respond to new client demands quickly and without incurring large setup costs will help businesses rely on outsourcing for their Internet marketing needs.

Mobile

88% of those who took the survey said “the rise of mobile” is “significant or highly significant.” The “year of mobile” has been upon us since 2010 but companies are finally seeing it as a channel worth targeting specific. Custom mobile landing pages and ad copy are key to creating good user experience on mobile devices. This provides a barrier for some companies.

Social

Companies regularly using Facebook PPC dropped from 74% to 56%, though ad spend remained relatively flat. Agencies and in-house departments that are unable to effectively report the ROI of social are in danger of losing budget. 40% say their social ROI reporting is “poor.”

56% of companies are leveraging Google+, many for SEO purposes.

Only 16% say they are using social mainly to generate leads.

SEO and PPC

Companies are using PPC and SEO more for brand channels and reputation management. Controlling the search results can lead traffic to pages and sites that have a positive impact on your business.

The focus from rankings to traffic and leads is apparent in this report. Only 30% say rankings are the most important objective for SEO. 47% say traffic volume is the primary SEO objective.

Overall Impressions

Search and social spend is increasing, but mostly when it is well measured and reported. Companies are no longer engaging in SEO, PPC, and social campaigns just to keep up with the industry. They are looking at returns and holding each channel responsible.

The full 2012 SEMPO State of Search Marketing Report gives much more insight into the Internet marketing industry. SEMPO is the largest group for search and social professionals. Membership in this global organization will give you access to the entire report and many other benefits.

Pure Visibility is proud to be heavily involved with the SEMPO Michigan group and encourages everyone to visit sempo.org for more information. SEMPO Michigan will be hosting their Quarter 4 event at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business Friday, November 30th, 2012. For more information, visit facebook.com/SEMPOMichigan or SEMPO.org.

Tales from the (Dead Link) Crypt: Finding Valuable but Broken Links to Your Site

Hey SEO-ers, Webmaster-ers, and all other Internet people!

Today I’m going to be talking about tracking down links pointed to your site (or your client’s site) that would be valuable IF they weren’t linking to non-existent pages or files. Valuable in this case refers mainly to the SEO value of links, though this often correlates with the value of links to humans.

After you have this list of links, you can figure out which ones you want to get fixed and reach out to their respective creators.

Requirements:

  • Computer
  • Majestic SEO or SEOMoz’s Open Site Explorer
  • Screaming Frog, or another similar spider program that can check the response codes of a list of URLs. (Easy enough to program yourself, if needed!)

So the first step in this process is generating a list of all “valuable” links to your site. Majestic SEO is probably the best tool to do this, but it can also be done with Open Site Explorer.

Let’s take a look at the Majestic SEO Site explorer (“Top Backlinks” tab) output for the Pure Visibility site:

 

Looks good, but we don’t really know if any of these links are 404’ing. Let’s scroll down to the bottom of the page and click “Download CSV” to grab the goods.

We now have a pretty massive spreadsheet with a lot of insightful columns:

 

In fact, there are way more columns than we need. Theoretically we could come up with an awesome combination of citation flow, trust flow, anchor text, and more to determine which links are valuable.

And if you only have a small number of backlinks, you could even assess each link one-by-one. But we all have more interesting stuff we could be doing (like shooting Nerf darts down the office hallway) so let’s solve simply. Let’s delete all of the columns except:

  • Source URL
  • Target URL
  • ACRank (“a very simple measure of how important a particular page is by assigning a number from 0 (lowest) to 15 (highest) depending on the number of unique referring external root domains.”)
  • FlagNoFollow

Our next step is to filter the FlagNoFollow column to remove any links that are not followed by search engines. While a no-followed link can sometimes be valuable, it’s usually not, so let’s get rid of those for now:

 

Now let’s copy the Target URL column into a new spreadsheet, and export it as a .csv file. Then we’ll fire up Screaming Frog, throw it into list mode, import the .csv file and hit “Start.” Then click over to the Response Codes tab, and filter to “Client Error (4xx).”

 

And here we have a short list of URLs that are 404’ing, but have links pointing to them (oh noes!). Let’s copy and paste this list back into our excel spreadsheet, and then have a label to the right of them marked “DEAD” (very scary).

You might have noticed that some of these URLs do not seem very crucial (for instance, image files). However, it might be the case that someone is syndicating (copying) our blog content. Personally, we’d rather have our content copied with working images rather than looking disheveled.

Next, let’s program in this cool vlookup function to check which links are going to 404’ing URLs:

=IFERROR(VLOOKUP([@TargetURL],F:G, 2, FALSE), “-”)

(where columns F and G hold the 404’ing URLs and “DEAD”, respectively)

 

Now all we have to do is filter our vlookup column for cells marked “DEAD,” and we’re left with a list of source and target URLS of 404’ing links. The ACRank column can be used to judge if these things are likely to be valuable, and inform the decision of which sites to reach out to about fixing these links.

 

Luckily, our website isn’t doing too bad. But client websites that change often and don’t implement 301 redirects might not fare so well.

Good luck with the link re-building that follows, and leave us a comment if you have any questions or concerns. If you want to expand on this, you can always investigate fixing 302’ing links as well (turning them into 301 redirects), to harvest more of that ever-important link juice.

SES Toronto – Conference Wrap

Earlier this summer I attended SES in Toronto. While I was there, I picked up a few gems to bring home to add to my Internet marketing toolbox.

Here are some of the things I found interesting:

  • Focus on micro-conversions and assign economic value to them. So if a user comes to your website and doesn’t buy something or “convert,” was his or her visit worthless? What if they did a search on your site while they were there? How much is that worth to you?
  • Before worrying about your SEO or rankings in the search engines, you should focus on your website first. The average abandonment rate is 85%. Have a usable website where you focus on the user experience to reduce this rate.
  • From Matt Bailey’s Intro to SEM: People that use plural search terms are looking and those that use singular terms know what they want and are ready to buy.
  • From Judith Lewis’s Social Media 101: Just because a social channel exists doesn’t mean that you should be in that space.
  • Jim Yu from BrightEdge suggested that you should know the on-page and off-page SEO strategies of your competitors. You should really get to know your competitors in search by measuring share of voice.
  • Coming home from SES TorontoIn a discussion session, the group talked about attribution modeling. The basic message was you don’t want to eliminate something from your marketing mix that is perhaps giving an assist to a conversion, rather than a direct conversion. By applying points for “assists” and “goals” you can get a better picture of how your customers convert on your website.
  • Use your “Thank You” page as a place where you can give your customer an opportunity to convert again. It is appropriate due to the buying stage he or she is in at that point.

Of course, being at the conference really fired me up about Internet marketing. Being able to talk with industry experts and ask them questions made the trip a very valuable one for me. I can’t wait to go to another one!

eCommerce Ann Arbor Presentation: Data Management for Maximum SEO Impact

Pure Visibility’s Search Engine Optimization Lead, Jeremy Lopatin, presented at eCommerce Ann Arbor on August 20, 2012. Jeremy shared some real examples on how to maximize your search engine visibility for e-commerce. He also gave time to the audience to ask their own questions about performing SEO for e-commerce sites.

As is often the case with SEO and with presentations about Google’s services, one item in the agenda was out of date by the time the presentation rolled around! Specifically, Google Merchant Center feed optimization was rendered moot by Google’s transition from Merchant Center to Google Shopping earlier this summer. While product listing data is still important, it requires different approaches in the new system–specifically it’s a paid search/advertising model rather than an SEO/organic listing.

After that summary, Jeremy explored the fun and rich world of microdata markup, which allows websites to hold additional context on their information. The microdata most relevant to the e-commerce setting can be found at schema.org/Product. Examples include:

  • product rating data and reviews
  • product specifics such as: brand, manufacturer, model

The talk also covered strategies to detect and squash duplicate content in product descriptions, and then pointers for getting the most from Google Webmaster Tools.

Missed the presentation? Here are the slides!

SEMPO Michigan Talks to DC: We Hosted Senator Stabenow in Lansing and Representative Dingell in Ann Arbor

The Michigan chapter of the Search Engine Marketing Professionals Organization (SEMPO sempo.org) hosted two interactive panel sessions to help inform and connect with our elected officials.

The Lansing event, held Wednesday August 15, 2012, featured U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow, representatives from Google, and leaders of small businesses across Michigan. The panel discussed challenges to find, to educate, and to hire the right talent within Michigan to grow the digital agency and the search engine/Internet marketing industry here in our state. Linda Girard, Pure Visibility’s Founder and Visionary, moderated the session.

The Ann Arbor event, held Monday, August 20, connected local businesses to U.S. Representative John D. Dingell who represents Michigan’s 15th Congressional District. Other participants at the event included representatives from Google, small business owners from the metro Detroit and Ann Arbor areas, as well as educators.

One of the key priorities emerging from this discussion was the need for both talent and education programs for digital marketing, echoing the theme from the Stabenow session.

We were thrilled to be part of this group of local business and elected leaders planning the future of our great state. Go Michigan! Go SEMPO!

U.S. Representative John D. Dingell with SEMPO Michigan Co-founders

U.S. Representative John D. Dingell (center) with Eric Wortman and Linda Girard, co-founders of SEMPO Michigan

Rel=Author for Businesses: Close, But No Cigar

Google’s rollout of the rel=author tag has lead to a great deal of confusion for those who don’t devote their entire day to keeping up with the latest SEO trends.  When applied properly it has the potential to exponentially increase visibility within organic results, and may eventually turn Google search results into a much more visual experience.

And of course, there is Google’s ultimate goal of bridging the gap between social and search, and continuing to push the deep integration of Google+ into every one of their products and services.

An example of a rel=author result

Some recent work for a client posed some interesting issues with rel=author when trying to implement it on their company blog. As of now, Google appears to only allow the author tag to work for individuals with a personal Google+ profile, and who are credited with writing the article on the respective blog. This is great for those of us who author content on our personal sites, but poses an issue for companies that post content on behalf of the brand itself.

In an ideal world, Google would allow us to use the rel=author tag to display a company logo in the organic results next to the posts we are responsible for producing, and then associate the blog with a Google+ brand page. This isn’t currently an option.

A bit of research turns up another tag Google appears to have intended for brand pages:  rel=publisher. At first this appeared to solve the above issue, but in its current state, the tag only works for branded searches, i.e. if somebody searches specifically for a company name.

Even if a branded search is conducted, the rel=publisher tag will only put the brand logo and information in the right hand margin of the page.  Essentially the same effect as Google’s new Knowledge Graph results. There is still no brand image that appears to the left of the individual organic results.

The current workaround is to take the brand blog content and credit a specific individual at the company with authorship (maybe the CEO or other executive). This includes also setting up a Google+ profile for the individual. Not exactly the ideal situation, but really the only option with the current “rel=” functionality.

With over 1 million brand pages currently on G+, Google will have to resolve this issue sooner or later. Keep an eye out for updates to the rel=author and rel=publisher tags moving forward.

Find Robbie Bolog on Google+

AdWords Tips & Tricks: Advanced Account Structure

One often overlooked component of AdWords campaigns is the account structure. Which keywords should be bundled together in an ad group? What ad groups should make up a campaign? These are important questions to answer, especially when it comes to settings made at the campaign level.

Ad extensions and location targeting can play a major role in the success of your account. AdWords accounts can have a dozen ad groups per campaign. Others call for only one ad group per campaign.

structure

Early 90's structure

Regardless of how you structure your campaign, pay close attention to the labeling of ad groups and campaigns within AdWords. The correct labeling can help you segment data directly in AdWords and provides insights without generating spreadsheets in the Client Reporting tab.

The following AdWords account uses each campaign to target a different metro. Ad groups are not only segmented by keyword grouping, they are also broken into “Local” and “General.” This allows you to instantly pull how keywords with locations are performing from non-location keywords.

AdWords ad group structure

Segment by local terms

 

To filter out the local search terms, click on the Ad groups tab and apply the following filter:

Local filter

The filter bar

 

Including “- ” will ensure that you are including an ad group label. This helps when you are using state abbreviations such as “MI.” Otherwise you’d be pulling all ad groups that include “mi.” Scroll to the bottom of the report to see the data from the filtered set of ad groups.

Filtered data

Filtered results

 

In this next AdWords account, each campaign only has one ad group. This is so a unique set of site links can be assigned to each ad group. If you wanted to see how all admissions keywords were performing for the entire account you could create an “Admissions” filter.

Division

One ad group per campaign

 

This last example has several location labels within each campaign. The basic structure is what cities the campaign is targeting, followed by the state, and lastly the region as designated by the client.

This AdWords account uses a two-letter abbreviation (MN) for the state and a three letter for the region (MIN). This structure allows data to be filtered by state to see how each compares, but also makes it easy to report region by region per client requests.

Location segments

Multiple location labels

 

Ad group and campaign labels when used with the filter function can increase the speed of reporting. It also helps pull data quickly while in client meetings. Experiment with what works best for you and each of your accounts. Happy labeling!

Find Eric Wortman on Google+.

UPA 2012: Thoughts on the Conference

The Usability Professionals’ Association 2012 conference was in Las Vegas from June 4-8. It was a great experience AND highly educational.

The theme of the conference was leadership, and while there were some great non-leadership-related talks, many revolved around this theme. This is a good theme for the UPA crowd because we have more introverted people than average for the general population — or to put it another way, a lot of people that may need help developing their leadership skills.

Highlights from sessions that I attended were:

  • The opening keynote by Ronald Riggio focused squarely on the theme of developing leadership. A majority of leaders are made rather than born, and doing so takes effort and commitment. Leadership is a complex skill, and both leaders and followers must work together to produce it through their relationship with each other.
  • Martina Schell’s Selling Design to Human Beings — The 13 Communication Anti Patterns That Kill Good Proposals — was a good, well-organized talk about the ways that we trip ourselves up when talking to stakeholders, by doing things like having different KPIs, not addressing everyone’s goals, presenting with contextualizing our work, and so on.
  • Changing gears completely, Jeff Sauro’s talk, First Impressions of Website Usability, was not about leadership and instead about a nuts-and-bolts user experience topic. People who only look at a website (or anything else) for only five seconds will penalize usability and credibility compared to people that spend more time with the website. However, people will rate more attractive sites as more usable, even if it’s just as usable as an ugly site. First impressions are critical online. It’s not enough to make the site easy to use — the way it looks is critical for getting people to stick around.
  • David A. Siegel’s talk, Segmentation: The Shadowy Side of Persona Development, was a fascinating down-in-the-weeds discussion of segmenting data gathered from user research activities to form user personas. The part of his talk that resonated with me was the idea of finding the dimensions that differentiate users and using them as axes in a two- or three-dimensional space in which the users from the research study can be placed, and then looking for the clusters.

Of course, there were more great talks that unleashed a torrent of insight upon me. All in all, it was a great conference.

Competitor Trademark Bidding in AdWords and adCenter

Google AdWords and Microsoft adCenter paid search platforms have similar trademark policies, here are the policy summaries:

Policies vary by the country of interest, but the gist of it for the U.S. is that you can bid on competitors’ trademarks, but you cannot use those trademarks in the ad text. You are responsible for bidding on trademarked keywords, but AdWords and adCenter actively investigate trademarked terms used in ad text.

There are exceptions to the rule about trademark usage in ad text for resellers, informational sites, and (for adCenter) third-party validated comparisons, but generally when you’re talking about trademark bidding strategies, you’re talking about a situation where you are prohibited from using the trademark in ad text.

So when do you want to bid on a competitor’s trademark? What follows is purely a goal-based analysis of what you probably want to do when considering competitor trademarks; it doesn’t take into account business policies or preferred conduct. In addition, my assumption is that your goals are based on leads and revenue.

Depending on market position, brand recognition campaigns might be more apt to bid on competitors’ trademarks because of the perceived value in “stealing” website visitors, but the analysis here is based more on sales metrics.

Quality Scores and Trademark Bidding

Trademark campaign success depends on quality score factors. Keyword phrases for competitors’ trademarks get low quality scores. They’ll have low clickthrough rates, low ad relevance, and low landing page relevance. This drives up bids to maintain a position that still brings in clicks, and it increases the average cost per conversion.

Adding to the challenge, this is for a category of terms that will likely have low conversion rates because it misses the exact intent of the visitor’s query. That being said, there are a few generalizations that I have observed indirectly from paid search marketing. (I say “indirectly” because you don’t see quality scores for ad ranking most of the time — I’m making a judgement based on ad position and average cost per click.)

  • The more the keyword relates to a product or service and the less the keyword it relates to the trademark itself, the better the quality score. For example one of our competitors bidding on “pure visibility” should expect the quality score to be lower than if they were bidding on “pure visibility corporate paid search marketing.”
  • Trademark keywords that are bid directly seem to have lower quality scores than trademark queries that are occasionally broad-matched by a non-trademark term. For example, if you bid directly on “pure visibility corporate paid search” you might expect that term to have a lower quality score at an auction for the query “pure visibility corporate paid search,” than when “corporate paid search” broad matches that query.
  • In AdWords (as of June 2012) the quality score has a greater negative affect on your ad’s rank than in adCenter. So it’ll be more likely that you will want to avoid trademark bidding in AdWords than in adCenter, when considering quality scores.

Conditions That Make Trademark Bidding Feasible

Companies that are new to paid search will often want to focus on competitors’ trademarks. For small brands who want to carve out a market from a larger brand, this is particularly attractive.

For small brands, you’ll usually not only want to avoid bidding on competitor’s trademarks, but you should also want to block them with negative keywords. A well-performing paid search account won’t have competitor trademarks as the focus; there will be a large set of keywords that are product- or service-specific. You should always expect the average cost per click for a competitor’s trademark to be on the high side.

These are some cases with generalizations about what you can expect in the AdWords or adCenter search network:

  • Trademark bidding could work well when your product isn’t heavily attached to your brand. For example, your product line is similar to your competitor, and you sell identical products at a better deal. You might sell particular models at a cheaper rate in a price-sensitive market. In this case you’d try bidding directly on competitors’ brands, particularly the specific variations that might be product relevant.
  • Your service is similar to your competitor, and you have key features or conveniences in common. You place high value on conversions coming from competitor queries. You could try bidding on your competitor’s trademark, especially in adCenter, but most likely you’d just want to broad match competitor terms with non-competitor terms.
  • You have a regular business. Brand is important to what you sell and consumers or businesses place heavy distinction on different brands. You’ll want to block branded queries with negative keywords.

In some accounts blocking competitor brands with negative keywords has a lot of value that isn’t readily apparent without sifting through search query reports.

It’s difficult to group together competitor-related queries to see aggregate performance because the queries won’t have a lot in common. But it’s worth trying. Besides direct benefits from reducing costs, you could be improving quality scores by increasing your overall clickthrough rates by blocking competitor terms.

This advice is for search networks. It is more difficult to generalize about content or display networks. It is worth trying ad groups with competitor keywords in the AdWords content or display network. This can buy you some very relevant placements.

Try It Out With Reserved Expectations

Based on sales and leads, most of the time you do not want to bid on competitor trademarks. But these are generalizations, for definitive answers you should always try it out. However, you shouldn’t expect competitor trademark bidding suddently to provide big improvements to a well-established account.