Google: Over 1 Million Served

Google may still have a ways to go to catch Mickey D's but the recent disclosure that it had over 1 million advertisers in 2007 is impressive indeed.

As I've said repeatedly, the Long Tail is alive and well. And when, it comes to Google, it really is a virtuous self-fulfilling cycle (prophecy?) More advertisers mean more relevant ads for consumers which means more search queries which means more market share which means more advertisers. Ba-da-da-da... they're lovin' it.

Reviewing My 2008 Predictions

On Tuesday, I linked to my post on the RM Blog outlining 10 predictions for search marketing in 2009.

Today, I thought it would be fun to review my predictions for 2008 to see how I did. At the end of 2007, I used my Search Insider Buzz-o-Meter column to lay out the following predictions:

1. "Google to bow display ads on SERPs after the DoubleClick deal closes."

2. "More consolidation in the [agency] space, with large shops scooping up specialized search firms as they acknowledge how critical search is to all aspects of marketing and realize how hard it is to build search expertise in-house."

3. "More and more search firms [will] stick a flag in the sand regarding their core expertise -- some will embrace all forms of performance-based media, others will develop full-service digital marketing capabilities led by 'search-think,' and still others will remain true to query-based marketing only."

4. "Facebook to have a major impact on the search marketing landscape in '08, whether it be incorporating Web search (via MSN?), reacting to news feed optimization or spawning regulation around data portability."

5. "A[n economic] pullback could actually be good for search -- when times are tough, marketers load up on platforms with proven ROI -- I also think it could stunt innovation, with the Big 4 unwilling to take chances and upstarts unable to get funding."

6. "Search marketers to figure out how to leverage widgets beyond the mere link-popularity benefits."

7. "The next wave of opportunity is likely in the torso -- after all, as the tail gets longer, the belly gets fatter."

8. "[Microsoft's KSP platform aka AdIntelligence] will make search marketers smarter in '08, and hopefully it will push Google and Yahoo towards becoming more transparent with their data (although I'm not betting on that.)"

Now, to steal a page from Paul Harvey, "for the rest of the story..."

1. Wrong. Didn't happen outside a tiny pocket of experimentation with banners on Google Image results.

2. Sorta. iProspect gobbled up Range Online Media. Publicis snapped up Performics. That was about it though. Instead of acquisitions, we saw a trend towards large agency holding companies infusing resources from their search specialist shops into individual agency brands (eg, WPP creating Group M Search and infusing search talent into Mindshare, Mediaedge, and MediaCom).

3. Right. Search agencies definitely chose sides this past year. As I pointed out in yesterday's Search Insider column, Didit is positioning itself as a "company providing bid management services." 360i kept its "Search-Informed Marketing" approach but acquired creative shop i33 to deliver full-service solutions. Meanwhile, Resolution Media stuck with its laser-focus on Query Marketing (although per prediction #9, look to see expansion here). There were more examples but these 3 check each of the boxes I outlined in my prediction so we'll move along.

4. Sorta. As I suspected, Facebook finally launched web search in tandem with Microsoft but it didn't exactly set the search world on fire. Data portability was a hot topic with the launch of Google Friend Connect but regulation in the space came not from the government as I expected but self-imposed practices from folks like Yahoo shortening the duration of personal data storage to 90 days.

5. Wrong. The recession might not have been bad for search (after all, flat is the new up, right?), but it wasn't good for it either. And innovation among the Big 4 may have slowed but it certainly wasn't stunted. Google rolled out SearchWiki, Microsoft rolled out a number of cool features like Farecast integration and more (see my comments on this post), and Yahoo, despite being battered the most, still managed to roll out Search Monkey as part of its open initiative. Meanwhile, the search for the Google killer continued as startups like Cuil raised cash and launched to very little acclaim.

6. Wrong. 2008 was a big year for widgets, although they're now more commonly referred to as applications thanks to Facebook and the iPhone. Not much application for search marketers though.

7. Wrong. The power of the long tail shone mightier than ever in '08, helping Obama take the White House. There was much debate at the recent Search Insider Summit over the relevance of the long tail to search marketers with no clear consensus. The torso did emerge in a big way this year, just not from a search standpoint. Rather the torso reared its ugly, er, head as vertical ad networks become the "it" thing in online display media.

8. Right. MSFT AdIntel made Resolution Media much smarter search marketers this year. And, sure enough, Google followed suit becoming more transparent with absolute search volume data and a nifty Insights for Search tool.

If I take half-credit for the sorta's, the tally puts me at 38% accuracy. I certainly went out on a few more limbs with my '09 predictions so it will be interesting to see how I fare this coming year. One thing we can all bank on (sorry, bad word choice) for '09 -- it ain't gonna be pretty.

There's No Buzz-ness like SIS Buzz-ness

In today's Search Insider, I recap the Buzz (and lack thereof) from last week's Search Insider Summit. Here were the top 10 buzzwords from the show.

1. Google
2. Economy, Recession (tie)
3. Data, Analytics, Attribution (tie)
4. iPhone, Mobile (tie)
5. Microsoft
6. Relationship, Transparency (tie)
7. Strategy, Tactics (tie)
8. Bid Management, Quality Score (tie)
9. Omniture
10. Social

Honorable Mentions: Long Tail, Hope, Integration

The Long Tail is Alive and Well

I just read that Barack Obama raised $750 million for his campaign. That's a staggering amount of money but what's more incredible is that he did it the Google way -- a few bucks here and a few bucks there. In fact, Obama received contributions from over 3.95 million individuals. That makes the average campaign donation about $190.

Had Obama catered only to the "head" of the fundraising curve (ie, big donors or the Treasury's public financing) he'd have come nowhere close to these numbers. By diversifying his donor base and making it easy (and cool) to make donations of as little as $25 through social media plays like My.BarackObama.com and Facebook outreach, Obama showed an acute understanding of the power of the Long Tail.

So to all those that insist the Long Tail is dead, I say, don't ever try to run for office!

Coin Flip

I just came across this article in the WSJ -- Study Refutes Niche Theory Spawned by Web.

The author, Lee Gomes, cites research from Anita Elberse, a marketing professor at Harvard Business School, that supposedly flies in the face of Chris Anderson's Long Tail theory.

Cliff Notes

Essentially, the Long Tail theory argues that the rise of the Internet and unlimited shelf space means that blockbuster hits are less important as it is now commercially viable to store and sell niche products/content that may appeal to small audiences.

Heads or Tails?

Per Gomes, "Prof. Elberse looked at data for online video rentals and song purchases, and discovered that the patterns by which people shop online are essentially the same as the ones from offline. Not only do hits and blockbusters remain every bit as important online, but the evidence suggests that the Web is actually causing their role to grow, not shrink."

Long Winded

Gomes then launches into an "I told you so" rant saying that he's been skeptical of the Long Tail theory all along as it was a largely self-serving theory drummed up by techies and bloggers for techies and bloggers.

Not an Either/Or Proposition

I don't see how this new research discredits the Long Tail theory. As far as I know, Chris Anderson never proclaimed the death of the blockbuster. Rather, he said companies no longer needed to focus on producing blockbusters (or selling only blockbusters) because there was now room for alternatives of every shape and size at the end of the tail.

Anderson also never suggested that companies should focus on producing only niche products/content. Rather, he argued that companies that aggregated all the niches out there (eg, Amazon, iTunes, Google) would have success in the digital economy.

Have Your Cake and Eat it Too

The bottom line is that people want both blockbusters and niches.

Blockbusters definitely have a place in today's society. As Elberse observes, "We like experiencing the same things that other people are experiencing -- and the mere fact that other people are experiencing and liking something makes us like it even more."

But people also like being able to access products/content that meet the unique preferences they may only share with a few others.

These concepts are not mutually exclusive. Amazon has a bestsellers list and great search and recommendation technology to help you find niche products. iTunes features its mainstream artist of the week while allowing you to find the most obscure B-side track. Google generates revenue from Fortune 500 advertisers and mom and pops alike.

The Sky is Falling, the Sky is Falling

At the end of the day, people (especially bloggers and journalists) seem to flock to dramatic story-lines like moths to the flame.

Everyone hailed the Long Tail as the end of the “old way” of doing business. Now, Harvard research is being trumpeted to show “old is new again.”

As the pendulum swings back and forth, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.