Assorted Musings

Image Source

Peep the Connectual blog for 3 recent posts featuring my mug in the press.

1. 5 Ideal Mobile Ad Formats for a Post-AdMob Google -- POV in MediaPost on Google's AdMob acquisition and some further thoughts on AdMob's current ad formats (spoiler-alert: I'm not bullish on long-term prospects og mobile display ads).

2. Cracking the Blagica Files -- Interview with Blagica Stefanovski for her new blog series.

3. Engagement Does Not Equal Opportunity -- Weighing in with MediaPost on the meaning (or lack thereof) of comScore research showing Microsoft tops in time-spent.

Search Wars: Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures

Image Source

Unless you've been living under a rock, you're aware that Rupert Murdoch has been threatening to remove News Corp properties from the Google index as a means of punishing the Big G from profiting from its content. Many have weighed in on the pros and cons of such a move.

Today brings an interesting plot twist though. Apparently, Microsoft is offering to pay News Corp to "de-index its news sites from Google." According to the Financial Times, "Microsoft has also approached other big online publishers to persuade them to remove their sites from Google’s search engine."

Microsoft seems to have no limits to its scramble to catch Google. After spending millions to launch Bing, it struck a distribution deal with Yahoo but everything MSFT gained in share from Bing, Yahoo has since lost.

It looks like Microsoft realizes it can't catch Google just by improving its own product or aligning with other contenders. It has to cripple Google itself. But, will paying big publishers to remove their sites from Google be enough to break the Google Habit? I'm not so sure.

Frankly, I don't think that many searchers would realize that News Corp sites are missing from the index. Google has no shortage of other sources to cite for queries related to News Corp content so people will just get their news or entertainment from other places. Google is one of the top brands in the world. News Corp is not. Google is the source the masses trust when seeking information. News Corp is not.

It would take a coalition of all major news outlets to boycott Google for this to be a meaningful coup. And I don't think others are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face the way News Corp is ready to do. (After all, if I'm Turner and I just saw Murdoch remove his properties from Google, wouldn't I be thrilled to have that traffic come my way?) And, even if they would, there's plenty more to Google than just news search. In fact, who really searches for news anymore? Don't we all just lean back and let Twitter tell us what's going on in the world?

Meanwhile, while Microsoft is putting all this horsepower into figuring out a way to catch up in search, Google is busy launching Chrome OS. If this puts a dent into the Windows franchise, it would surely be a bigger blow to MSFT than the opportunity cost of not being #1 in search.

Now I'm not suggesting Microsoft give up on search. I've always been a proponent of fostering competition in search. That said, competition means all parties have access to the same sources of information. And a strong search platform (that will continue to provide ROI for advertisers) requires having all forms of content in the search engines, including news. So I'm not a fan of News Corp or any other publisher removing their sites from the search indices, much less Microsoft paying them to do so.

So let the Search Wars continue. But let's keep it clean, aye?

Update: I just commented on a post by Mark Cuban who calls this attack by Microsoft "smart." Danny Sullivan also weighed in, breaking down Cuban's argument frame-by-frame and countering blow-for-blow.

Update 11/23: MediaPost picked up my POV in its coverage of this story -- Could Microsoft-New Corp.'s Deal Mean Sharing Ad Profits? I talk about the technical aspects of this type of deal as well as why it won't have a big impact on consumers.

Update 11/24: Another press mention in MediaPost -- Can News Corp. Syndicate Its Content For Search Engine Use? I'm cited downplaying the importance of news search inventory for advertisers.

Update 11/24 #2: Gord Hotchkiss has a very thoughtful analysis of the "conscious decisions [people make] about where they go to get their news and information" in his post, Mindless Online Behavior: Web Navigation on Autopilot. Included is a great analogy comparing Google to a refrigerator. Required reading for anyone trying to better understand the potential implications of News Corp. pulling out of the Google index.

Update 11/24 #3: Just expanded on the thread around the mindset of news searchers on the Connectual blog -- Sorry News Corp, News Not Core to Search Advertising. Even included a subtle Foreigner clip!

Twitter SEO

Yesterday, Microsoft incorporated tweets into the search results on Bing using an API from Twitter. You can see it in action at Bing.com/Twitter. (Not to be outdone, Google quickly announced that it had struck a similar deal.)

Being the search geek that I am, my first thought when I heard about this was, "How can I get myself on the homepage?" After striking out on getting my picture on the Bing homepage, I was determined to reign victorious on this effort.

So I went to the Bing Twitter homepage and saw the trending topics at that time.




















Paranormal Activity was the first one under the tag cloud so I tried using that as a keyword in my tweet... to no avail.














Then I noticed that the signal Bing seemed to be using was the link because the heading for the section is "Shared Links About Hottest Topics." So I tried again and included the specific link that appeared to be the trigger for which tweets it pulled through to the homepage. Again, no luck.
















So I decided to try another hot topic...














And voila! See me there at the bottom?
























Here's a closeup...









Do I get a medal?















Implications for marketers:

Don't get all crazy with your Twitter SEO just yet. I can't imagine this Bing Twitter mash-up is getting significant query volume. For that to happen, Twitter would need to start defaulting it's search functionality to Bing. And that's unlikely, given the similar deals Twitter has struck with Google (and apparently Yahoo.)

The other option would be for Bing (and/or Google) to start including tweets in the main search results and not at a custom URL. At the very least, Bing should integrate a Twitter drill-down option on the left-rail alongside images, video, etc.

If/when the query volume is there, it will be the wild wild west with SEO's trying to reverse engineer the algorithm and the engines continually refining it to defeat black hat tactics. Today, it's apparently as easy as including a link about a popular topic in your tweet. I suspect that will change quickly though.

Other signals the engines can/should/will use include:

• Authority of the Twitter account -- based on number of followers, tweets and amount of time account has been active
  
• Relevancy to the topic -- based on keyword (character?) density and/or hashtags
  
• Number of retweets
• Categorization of Twitter account -- perhaps tapping We Follow or other directories (eg, an account tagged as Chicago will have a better chance at coming up for Chicago-related Twitter queries)

SEO's, start your engines! But no need to floor it until there's more people in the stands.

Yahoo: It's You-ish

What's gotten into the portals these days? First Microsoft launches Bing with an over-the-top commercial essentially blaming the recession on Google. Now comes Yahoo with an ad that would have you believe it can make you into some sort of superhero, leaping tall buildings, making mad cash and endearing yourself to the opposite sex.

While Yahoo didn't go after any of its competitors in this spot, it -- like Bing -- used a barrage of images set to techno music, surely designed to appeal to the short-attention spanned generation that's busy skipping right past Microsoft and Yahoo as they "Google it" to get to their online destination.

Don't get me wrong. I'm actually a big Yahoo fan and think Carol Bartz has it on the right track. I just wish the ad campaign told a story, any story, rather than a generic, "It's all about you message." It's just not enough of a differentiation.

As I said in my review of the Virgin Mobile, "You Rule" slogan, "This slogan could be for just about any brand that's hopped on the bandwagon of personalization in targeting today's self-centered instant gratification generation."

I actually think Yahoo could've used something like "Start Here" -- a slogan that was confusing when ABC used it -- to show that it's finally morphed into a true portal where all your favorite content is neatly organized and no-one's trying to keep you in a walled garden.

The thing that bugs me most about the Yahoo ad is that they actually use the word "consume" to describe how people might use it. For the love of marketing, people don't like to think of themselves as consumers!

Check that, just watched it again... the thing that bugs me most is that it shows 2 pre-teens when it suggests you use Yahoo to "flirt." As a father of a little girl who will be pre-teen in no time, the last thing I want to be thinking about is my daughter flirting with boys online.

And what's up with the harmony on the Yodel at the end? Bring back the country bumpkin! Or, wait a few more months and then I'm sure Kevin Skinner will be looking for paying gigs.

OK, enough ripping on this initial spot. Microsoft seemed to get it right after its manic breakout with follow-up spots that were more subtle and on-point and it appears the campaign is moving the needle on market share so maybe Yahoo's just trying to follow that blueprint and generate some buzz.

Here's the commercial...



And here's my 2 cents on the out-of-home ads...












Update 10/14: Just saw this chart from Silicon Alley Insider (h/t to @LenKendall via @JBCopeland) showing consumer perception of Yahoo pre and post "It's You." Looks like I'm not the only one that this campaign is failing to resonate with.

Bing Commercial: Too Hot for TV?

Speaking of Bing and its passion for porn, I've got a great idea for a new Bing commercial...

As I preached in my Search Insider column about the many flavors of search, Bing should cut the crap about Google causing the recession and do away with the cute but overpromising search overload spots.

Instead, Bing should showcase what it does well, travel, shopping, health... and porn!

Here's how my TV ad for Bing would play out...

Setting: 3 men lying on crowded beach with cocktails in hand doing a little "people-watching."

Attractive bikini-clad female walks by.

Man #1 (good looking, buff guy): "I'd Bing that."

Another attractive bikini gal strolls by.

Man #2 (also good looking dude): "I'd Bing that."

Big pink gorilla on unicycle rolls by.

Man #3 (nerdy, pasty guy with taped-up glasses and suntan lotion not rubbed in): "I'd Bing that!"

Cut to screenshot of computer showing Bing search for "Pink Gorillas on Unicycles."

Cue announcer voiceover: "Whatever you're into, you can Bing it."

Image Source
(Yes, I really found this on Bing!)

Bing is Serious About its Porn

So I'm working on my next Search Insider column -- picking up where I left off with "Everything I Need to Know About Marketing, I Learned from Google" -- and one of the lessons I'm including is that "sex sells." I'll elaborate on that point in my column but suffice it to say I'm focused more on the value of strong brand positioning than the prevalence of porn in search results.

Now it's been widely reported that Bing trumps Google when it comes to porn search, largely because of its "robust" (my word, not any reporter's) video search results and auto-play feature.

Nonetheless, I didn't realize how serious Bing was about its porn until I searched "Google porn searches" -- note to my wife: I was just looking for research to cite in my column about the percentage of queries on Google that are porn-related -- on Google and saw this sponsored listing for Bing.

Seems like they sure know their audience. "Making Key Decisions?" Online porn sure ain't cheap. (So I've heard.) Need to "Cut through the Clutter?" Umm, check.

Bada Bing, indeed!

Update: check out my suggested TV commercial for Bing catering to all the porn-seekers out there!

Microsoft-Yahoo Deal Overload

I don't have the time or chops to do it but it would seem like the Bing commercials touting search overload syndrome could be made into a funny parody around Microsoft-Yahoo deal overload.

Over the past few days, it seems like everyone (myself included) and their mother (mine excluded) has weighed in on what the implications of the deal will mean for everything from Google to SEO to local search to oil prices and global warming.

I, for one, have had enough and pledge to limit my coverage (read: obsession) over the deal to just the bare necessities. I welcome others who would like to join me in a vow of celibacy, er... self-censorship.

Everyone else will get Rickrolled!

Will the Microsoft Yahoo Deal be Good for Google?

Image Source

Here's a plotline I haven't seen get much coverage...

Microsoft and Yahoo acknowledge this deal will take time to pass DOJ review and full implementation is "expected to occur within 24 months following regulatory approval."

So what's going to happen over the next 24-36 months? Is Yahoo really going to invest in keeping its search engine up to snuff?

Bartz even said, "With Microsoft powering Yahoo! Search, we’ll be able to focus on the things we do best -– being the center of people’s lives online with properties like our homepage, mail, finance, news, sports, entertainment, mobile, etc."

I'm guessing that focus is going to shift tomorrow, not in 2-3 years.

With Yahoo's search product being left to rot, can it really be expected to maintain its 20% market share? Hardly. And where are those users going to migrate?

It's possible a good chunk of them will go to Bing. In fact, when Yahoo lost 0.5% share in June, Bing gained 0.4% while Google remained flat.

But, surely, Google will pick up some disheartened Yahoo searchers over the next couple years. The question is how many.

It's quite possible that we could be looking at a search pie in 2011 (when, mind you, "full implementation" will still not be complete) that could have Yahoo down to 10%, Bing up to 15% and Google sitting pretty with 70% -- up 5% from its share today.

More interesting threads around this deal in the updates to my previous post -- Bingya!

Update 7/30: Had an interesting back and forth on Twitter with Peter Hershberg, Co-CEO of Reprise Media, that I thought I'd share here. I'll break from tradition (read: laziness) and paste them in top-down chronological order, starting with Peter...

@AaronGoldman POV on Y Search being left to rot is flawed. Y has to invest in case deal isn't approved & to ensure max traffic to monetize.about 5 hours ago from web in reply to AaronGoldman

@hershberg Agree they "have to" but will they? When push comes to shove, where are Yahoo's best tech resources gonna be deployed?about 4 hours ago from TinyTwitter

@AaronGoldman There is distinction betw investment in algo and investment in UI. Y prob does more of the latter. Users won't know differenceabout 4 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to AaronGoldman

@hershberg Good point. Bing was really UI upgrade not algo though & it only netted 0.4% share. So if Y algo goes to crap, won't users flee?about 3 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to hershberg

@AaronGoldman If users thought it truly went to crap I guess they would. But I have to think there's commitment to MSFT to at least maintainabout 3 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to AaronGoldman

@hershberg I think the only commitment that matters is the guaranteed payments YHOO is sitting on for 1st 18 mos. ;) about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to hershberg

@AaronGoldman Well, I think that would be insanely shortsighted -- even for Yahoo. We shall see...about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to AaronGoldman

@hershberg On that we can agree, my man.about 2 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to hershberg

Update 7/30 #2: Fortune has a nice interview with Bartz and Ballmer going a little deeper on some of the outstanding Q's around the deal.

A couple quotes from Bartz caught my eye and reinforced my POV that Yahoo is likely to de-emphasize supporting its search product in the short term and prioritize other media and technology projects...

"Over the following 24 months some costs will be reduced."

"But back to the investment: The fact of the matter is that with half a billion people coming every day to a Yahoo site around the world, this actually gives us a better chance to take the money we’re saving and get more audience. We can get more audience because of better properties, stronger entertainment properties. We have all kinds of ideas. We can focus on display advertising technology."

Update 8/3: More good news for Google. Yesterday, the New York Times published an interview with Carol Bartz in which she said, "she sold the search business because Yahoo could no longer continue to match the level of investment Google and Microsoft were making in searching, one of the Web’s most lucrative and technologically complex businesses."

Later the article pointed out that "Yahoo will lose some of its most talented engineers to Microsoft and as many as 400 employees through layoffs."

I just don't see any way Yahoo will invest in its search product in the near-term. You don't announce a deal like this and then continue to dump money into what you conceded was a business that couldn't keep up.

And even if you postpone the layoffs until after the deal closes, I can't see how Yahoo's top search engineers would just stick around waiting for the verdict. Sure some may go to Microsoft but I'm sure others will flock to Google.

So Google may not only gain share over the next couple years while this deal comes together but it may also gain some intellectual capital.

Bingya!

Per AdAge, the Microsoft/Yahoo search deal will be announced tomorrow.

Highlights:

• Yahoo will sell the search advertising exclusively.
• Microsoft's adCenter will power the search ad platform.
• Bing will be the default search engine on Yahoo.

No word on what this means for each company's respective display offerings.

Last week I speculated a bit on the deal for a MediaPost news piece and picked up the thread of what they'd call the combined entity on the Connectual blog. On the latter, a commenter suggested Bingya and I must say, I love it!

Pretty sure they'll just use Bing though. Too much $ dumped into that brand to stray.

As for the implications on what this deal means for the search space, for now I'll just say that we should have plenty of time to speculate. Methinks the DOJ will take a hard look at this.

Update: I'm kinda surprised/impressed that Yahoo retained the rights to sell the ads.

It makes sense, though, that Microsoft wants to focus on technology. Its intentions to sell off Razorfish speak to the fact that it recognizes its core competency is tech not media or advertising.

Yahoo, on the other hand, is a media company first and foremost. Retaining the ad sales aspect will allow it to do some cool things in terms of behavioral and search retargeting across its various properties.

Hmm, Microsoft good at technology good, bad at advertising. Yahoo, bad at technology, good at advertising. Where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah, May 2007 when I told MediaPost, "Microsoft and Yahoo are a perfect match for each other... because of Microsoft's historical deficiency in creating scalable digital advertising solutions and Yahoo's corresponding deficiency in creating scalable technology solutions to deliver better advertising. Bring these two together and you have a company that can excel on both sides of the equation."

More on that thread in this post on the Resolution Media blog from Feb. '08 -- back when we were still calling it Microhoo.

Update 7/29: It's a done deal! Here are the terms:

• 10 year contract
• Yahoo uses Bing
• Yahoo keeps 88% of all rev.
• Yahoo has right to "sell ads on some Microsoft sites"

Apparently, Yahoo expects the deal to "boost its annual operating profit by $500 million."

Of the many Q's this deal raises is what will become of Yahoo's paid inclusion platform? For the sake of all the businesses that were built on top of YSSP (eg, trusted feed partners) I hope they keep it intact. More to follow.

Update 7/29 #2: Another burning Q is how they will combine the 2 sales teams. I have good friends and colleagues on both sides and, for their sakes, hope there isn't any attrition. But I can't imagine how everyone would keep their jobs given that Yahoo and Microsoft each have salespeople calling on the same accounts and agencies. Can't see how they justify doubling up especially as the combined entity becomes even more of a must-buy (read: easy sell).

Update 7/29 #3: Just as Google did when it announced its deal with Yahoo, Microsoft has a site designed to proactively address any Q's about competition and other issues the DOJ may have -- ChoiceValueInnovation.com (excuse me, I just threw up a little in my mouth there).

The site does contain some more interesting nuggets about deal terms:

• MSFT and YHOO will handle display separately
• YHOO will "own" the UI for search (guess we won't see those pretty Bing homepage pics on Yahoo.com)
• MSFT will guarantee revenue to YHOO for the first 18 months
• Full implementation "expected to occur within 24 months following regulatory approval

Update 7/29 #4: Just posted my thoughts on another looming Q -- Will the Microsoft Yahoo Deal be Good for Google?

Update 7/29 #5 (Well, technically it's 7/30 now): Decided to turn this list of unanswered questions into a more complete post (my second Top Ten list of the day) on the Connectual Blog: "Yahoo Microsoft Search Deal: 10 Most Interesting Plot Lines."

Update 8/5: eWeek scoured Yahoo's 8-k filing to reveal some interesting deal terms:

• Yahoo may terminate the deal if Bing's revenue per search is less than Google's
  
• Yahoo gets first right of refusal if Microsoft decides to sell its search business
• Both sides can kill the deal if its not consummated by 7/29/10
• After 5 years, Microsoft will have the option to terminate Yahoo's sales exclusivity (and bump its rev share to 93%)
• Microsoft will pay Yahoo $150mm over the next 3 years to cover "transition and implementation costs." (Not quite the "boatloads" of upfront cash Yahoo stockholders were expecting.)
• Microsoft must hire 400 Yahoo employees plus 150 for "transition services"
  

Google Chrome OS: Not a Conspiracy

In a New York Times Op-Ed piece yesterday, Robert Cringley posited that Google's Chrome Operating System announcement was a ploy to "keep Microsoft on its toes" and discourage it from a "deliberate sabotage on Microsoft’s part" that would render Google inaccessible on Windows computers.

Now, I'm a huge fan of conspiracy theories -- I even suggested that MSFT lobbying against Google was an effective way for Bing to catch up -- but this one seems a bit far-fetched.

I think Google's motives here are a little less sadistic -- yes, I still believe the company intends to "do no evil" -- and even honorable in the pursuit of maximizing profits for shareholders.

Cringley notes, "Google makes most of its money from selling Internet ads next to search results. Nearly everything else it does loses money, too. Neither company really cares because both make so much from their core products that it simply doesn’t matter. But companies, like people, strive and dream and in this case both dream, at least sometimes, of destroying the other."

That's like saying McDonald's makes all its money from selling hamburgers -- I'm on a big McD analogy kick lately -- so, when it decided to sell premium coffee, it was an effort to destroy Starbucks. Hardly. McD merely wants to sell more hamburgers and offering a more diverse product line will keep people coming back for its core product.

Sure McD may not lose money on every coffee sold the way Google technically loses money supporting products like YouTube, Chrome, and Gmail but you can't look at those products individually. Google does not break down its reported search advertising revenue by product. It's possible -- not likely, but possible -- Gmail is profitable if you take the hosting and support costs and add in the direct revenue from those little ads that appear next to people's emails.

It's much less likely that the same can be said for YouTube but what about all the searches people do via Google.com proper to find web video content? Surely, a good percentage of clicks on the resulting SERPs are on paid ads. If Google shut down YouTube, worldwide search queries would surely fall as there's be less video content out there for people to find.

Bottom line, in Google's case, "everything else it does" drives search queries, which, in turn, directly generates revenue thru its core product. So when it comes to deciding what new products to launch, the main lens Google brass looks through is whether or not it will lead to more searches, not what competitor it will damage. As I said last week, it's all about the queries, baby!

Update 9/8: Google just struck a deal with Sony for Chrome to be the default browser on all Vaios in the US. More queries more problems! More analysis on the Connectual blog.

Inching Along: Bing up a Fraction

New data released today by NetApplications shows Bing increased it's market share by 0.5% in June. MediaPost picked up the story and asked me to weigh in on the implications for marketers.

My post, "A Bing in Google's Armor" on the Connectual blog has more context for my quote and my expanded POV. The quick and dirty is that half a percentage point is virtually meaningless and unlikely to cause marketers to do anything differently.

That said, I don't put a lot of stock in research from a company I've never heard of. Let's just wait until comScore puts out its June search numbers, shall we?

Update 7/15: comScore's June data is in. In terms of share of search queries, Bing only captured an incremental 0.4% of share month-over-month. It did, however, show an increase of 20% in share of search results pages. Unfortunately for MSFT (but fortunately for consumers), the number of searches per repeat sessions was down. This likely means searchers are finding what they want faster with Bing, which, of course, means less queries to be monetized.

Update 8/18: comScore July data shows Bing up another 0.5% share at the expense of Google (-0.3%) and Yahoo (-0.3%). So Microsoft is up almost 1 full point in 2 months. Not too shabby. At this rate, Bing will eclipse Google in ~5 1/2 years -- even less if the Yahoo deal goes thru (as long as Yahoo doesn't lose any more share, that is)!

Update 9/23: comScore August data has up Bing another 0.4% with Google down 0.1% and Yahoo flat. Inch by inch and row by row, gonna make that Bing share grow.

Update 10/14: comScore Sept. data shows Bing leveling off -- up just 0.1% month-over-month with Google up 0.3% and Yahoo down 0.5%. So much for Yahoo's big ad campaign, aye? Yahoo is now down nearly 1.5 points in share since the Bing launch. As I said in my post, "Will the Microsoft-Yahoo deal be good for Google?" it's unlikely that Yahoo will continue to invest in improving its search assets over the next 24-36 months while the deal is approved and implemented. And, as I told the New York Times when the deal was announced, by the time Bing is fully powering Yahoo search, we may be looking at a 80/20 game instead of a 70/30 in terms of market share.

Update 11/17: OK, comScore Oct. data is in. The envelope please... Bing is up 0.5% but so is Google (up 0.5%) at the expense of Yahoo (down 0.8%). So the Bingoo combination is actually down 0.2% net since the Bing launch. In May, Yahoo had 20.1% share and Microsoft 8%. In Oct., Yahoo had 18% and Microsoft 9.9%. So everything that Bing has gained, Yahoo has lost. Geez, who could have seen this coming? And, mind you, these numbers are with the support of a combined $200mm in ad spending touting the Bing and Yahoo properties. What will happen when that money dries up?

Update 12/16: Per comScore's Nov. data, Microsoft now has double-digit search share, checking in at 10.3% -- up another 0.4% month-over-month. But Yahoo's down 0.5% to 17.5% so, once again, everything that Bing gained, Yahoo lost. Meanwhile, Google eeked out another 0.2%, rising to 65.6%.

Update 1/15/10: comScore's Dec. data shows Bing as the big winner again -- up 0.4% -- with Google up 0.1% and Yahoo down 0.2%.

Update 2/15/10: Is the tide turning? Per comScore's Jan. data, Bing just had its biggest month yet in terms of net share gain -- up 0.6% -- and this time, half of it came at Google's expense with the other half coming from Yahoo. Could slow and steady win this race? Still a ways to go but Bing's numbers continue to impress. Maybe this is what compelled Google to plunk down a couple million for a Super Bowl ad.

Update 3/30/10: Minor increase for Bing last month -- 0.2% per comScore Feb. data -- but it was the biggest gainer of all the major engines. Once again, Bing's gain was Yahoo's loss, so the Bingoo net was nil. Bing does sit at a nice round 11.5%, though.

Got some other good stats from Microsoft Director of Search Agency Sales, Patrick Harris, in preparation for my book. He shared that, Bing's user base climb is up 30% since launch. Additionally, unaided awareness has increased 41% and perception has improved by 14%. '

Also, keep in mind that I've only been tracking the U.S. search market share here. In another interview conducted for my book, Lawrence Wan, General Manager of Digital for Omnicom Media Group in China, speculates that Google's recent decision to provide uncensored results by redirecting China.cn to China.com.hk will cause the Chinese government to block access to Google which will, in turn, benefit not only Baidu -- the leading search engine in China -- but Bing and Yahoo as well.

Update 5/24/10: I'm a bit delinquent on updating this post. March numbers and April numbers have been published by comScore. March had Bing up 0.02% with Google down 0.04% and April showed Bing up 0.01% with Google down 0.07% and, shockingly, Yahoo up 0.8%. So, through April, Bing sits at 11.8%, Google at 64.4% and Yahoo at17.7%.

It's times like these that we must remember that comScore's data is panel-based and must be used directionally. That said, it appears Bing has continued in its upwardly direction. As for Yahoo, experts are attributing the April bump to a new News slideshow feature that automatically triggers search queries. Meanwhile, Google's UI changes are supposedly the reason for Google's declining share in that a refined vertical query (eg, news or maps) after an initial search only counts as 1 total query now.

Personally, I think the April data for Yahoo and Google are an anomaly and we'll see things swing back next month. My guess is April was just a big month for comScore panel users looking at Yahoo slideshows. Meanwhile, I suspect the counting methodology for Google queries will be fixed in short order if previous comScore/Google dust-ups are any indication.

Update 6/17/10: Waddya know? The trend continues. ComScore's May numbers have Bing up another 0.3% and Yahoo up a whopping 0.6%. Once again, Google was the big loser, down 0.7%.

In an effort to keep Google investors from panicking, comScore proactively addressed the issue of counting "context-driven" search queries in a blog post last week and indicated that it would adjust its methodology starting in Q3. Here's the rationale...

"Some context-driven search experiences also meet comScore’s current criteria for qualifying as a search and are therefore counted in qSearch market share reporting. At the same time, comScore recognizes that these are inherently different experiences compared to traditional web search queries. And because context-driven searches are sometimes monetized at different rates than traditional searches, we believe it is important to provide the marketplace with visibility into how they are contributing to search share."

Bottom line, these searches are not nearly as valuable to advertisers as pure search and, therefore, should not have material impact on search revenues. It'll certainly be interesting to see how the pie shakes out in July when comScore recenters things. Look for Google to reclaim its 65%+ throne.

Update 8/18/10: comScore's July numbers are in and, as promised, they included a breakout between "Explicit Core Search" and "Total Core Search." Explanations and definitions can be found here but the short story is explicit means user-initiated (read: what advertisers and investors should care about) and total includes contextual.

As I predicted, the re-centering has pushed Google back north of 65% to 66.2% with Yahoo at 16.7% and Bing at 11%. That's for explicit. Total core search has Google at 62.6%, Yahoo at 18.9% and Bing at 12.7%.

Bottom line for the search market share game? Same shit, different data.

Update 8/30/10: I'm quoted in MediaWeek today sharing thoughts on Bing one-year post launch...

"Per Aaron Goldman, principal at the digital marketing firm Connectual, Bing is now Google’s equal in usability. 'But just as good is not going to win,' he said."

Need I remind you how hard the Google habit is to break?

Update 9/25/10: The comScore August numbers are in. For explicit search (which is the only type I'll be tracking as it's the only type that really matters), Bing is up one-tenth 10 11.1%. Yahoo (surprise!) is up 0.3% to 17.4%. And Google is down 0.4% to 65.4%.

It'll be interesting to see what impact Google Instant has in September.

Update 10/23/10: per comScore's September data, Google is up 0.7%, it's biggest gain since the Bing launch in June of 2009. Yahoo was the big loser, down 0.7%. Bing was up a fraction (0.1%). Looks like Google has instantly found a way to jack up query volume!

Update 11/30/10: comScore October numbers show Google up another 0.2% to 66.3% total. Bing was up 0.3% with Yahoo down 0.2%.

So the Microsoft/Yahoo Search Alliance is still a net wash. The combo had 28% search share in June 2009 when Bing launched and it has 28% now. Meanwhile Google is up from 65% to 66.3% during that same time period. To be sure, this is still quite the feat for Microsoft in that it was able to hold ground in the overall rankings even with Yahoo seemingly giving up on search.

The real test will come over the next 18 months and search and social collide. And Bing seems to have the leg up on Google in that area... for now.

Update 12/15/10: comScore's November numbers have Bing up 0.3% and Google and Yahoo down 0.1% each. While this past month was a bit of a yawner, it's worth noting that Bing is closing in on 12% overall share, representing 40% growth since launch in June of last year. At this pace, Bing will be close to 20% by the end of 2011!

Update 1/15/11: comScore's Dec. numbers are in and Google made devilish gains... up 0.4% to 66.6%, all at Yahoo's expense. Meanwhile, Bing kept inching along... up 0.2% to that 12% mentioned in my last update.

Update 2/17/11: comScore's Jan. numbers show Bing taking a bite from the Big G to the tune of 1% share. Plus Bing snatched 0.1% from Ask putting it up to 13.1% overall. So much for the post-holiday hangover in Redmond!

Update 3/13/11: comScore's Feb. numbers have Bing up another 0.5%. with Google down 0.2% and Yahoo flat. Once again it was Ask giving ground to the tune of 0.2%. So Bing now sits at 13.6% and Google's at 65.4%. Those inches are adding up!

Update 4/13/11: comScore's March numbers put Bing and Google up another 0.3% each with Yahoo shedding 0.4%. MSFT and YHOO are now about 1.5% apart and still sitting on roughly 30% combined, about the same as when Bing launched.

Update 5/12/11: comScore's April numbers have Bing and Yahoo up 0.2% with Google *gasp* losing 0.3%. Did the release of Yahoo Search Direct manufacture more queries? And just when does a query become a query? When the drop down occurs?

Update 6/10/11: comScore's May numbers show Bing flat for the first time since launch. Meanwhile Yahoo was flat too and Google shed 0.1%. Pretty boring month. What were people doing? Searching on Facebook, maybe?

Update 7/13/11: comScore's June numbers have Bing up 0.3% and Google and Yahoo flat. Nice rebound.

Update 8/10/11: comScore's July data has Google down 0.4% and Bing flat. Yahoo's up 0.2%.

Update 9/8/11: I've been using comScore as my True North for tracking the share race here but interestingly Hitwise shows the combination of Bing and Yahoo gaining 4% from Google since the launch of Bing. I suspect that this is because Hitwise does not filter out contextually-driven searches like slideshows and the like.

Update 9/13/11: comScore's August numbers show Google down 0.3%, Bing up 0.3% and Yahoo up 0.2%. So Bing's closing in on 15% and Google's under 65% for the first time since Sept. 2009. I wonder if Google's fall spring-clean had anything to do with this?

Update 9/24/11: Good recap in TechCrunch of Bing's progress (and lack thereof) to date -- As Bing Bleeds Billions, Microsoft Applies Tourniquet

Update 10/16/11: comScore's September data has Bing flat, Google up 0.5% and Yahoo down nearly a point (0.8%)... yikes! And here I'd have thought Carol Bartz's firing would've had people searching, without the SafeSearch filter of course!

Update 11/11/11: Make a wish! comScore's October data puts Google up another 0.3% all at Yahoo's expense and Bing up a scant 0.1%.

Update 12/16/11: comScore's November data has Bing at 15% for the first time (up 0.2%) now just 0.1% behind Yahoo (down 0.1%). Google's holding strong at 65.4% despite a drop of 0.2% this month. Doesn't look like Bing will eclipse the 20% mark it was on pace for per my December 2010 update but a 3%+ gain over the past 12 months is nothing to sneeze at. Although, gaining it all from Yahoo is also nothing to yodel about.

Update 1/13/12: What a difference a month makes! And a pretty important month at that, at least in terms of e-commerce. Per comScore's December data, Bing has surpassed Yahoo for the first time at 15.1% (up 0.1%) with Yahoo down to 14.5% (down 0.6%). As if we already didn't know that new Yahoo CEO, Scott Thompson, had his work cut out for him! Meanwhile, Google gained 0.5% to close 2011 at 65.9%, nearly a full point higher than when Bing first launched and just 0.7% lower than its standing as of this time last year.
Update 2/14/12: comScore's January numbers have Yahoo shedding fourth-tenths, one to Bing (15.2%) and three to Google (66.2%). What, G Worry?

Update 3/13/12: Different month, same story. ComScore's Feb. data has Yahoo down another 3/10 with Bing picking up 1 (15.3%) and Google picking up 2 (66.4%).

Update 4/12/12: comScore's March report is a snoozer. Google and Microsoft flat with Yahoo giving one tenth to AOL. Boooring.

Update 5/13/12: Well, the numbers sure don't lie. Aye, Scott? Yahoo now has 8 months in a row of declining US search share with comScore's April data showing a loss of 0.2% with Bing and Google each picking up 0.1%. Hopfully Ross Levinsohn will figure out that this search thing really does matter even if you have Microsoft guaranteeing you revenue. My hunch is he will given that he's a media guy, the first in a while to take the helm at Yahoo.

Update 6/15/12: comScore's May numbers make it 9 red months in a row for Yahoo, down 0.1% with MSFT flat and Google up 0.2%.


Update 7/20/12: per comScore's June data, Yahoo is down another 0.4% to 13% flat with Google up 0.1% and Bing up 0.2%. Fortunately for Yahoo, its new CEO knows a thing or two about search!

Scratch and Sniff: I Have a Hunch that's the Smell of Victory

In today's Search Insider, I cover a lot of ground...

-All the various ways people search (along with ways information is returned to them)
-Positioning of the various search engines
-Comparison of Google to McDonald's and Bing to Wendy's
-Advice for Microsoft on how to better brand and advertise Bing
-Specific examples of the options people have for querying
-Reminder that everything comes down to decision-making and that's why Hunch is more than just the flavor of the month

I wrote this column on the plane back from vacation this past weekend. My wife asked me what the topic was so I explained. She argued that not all searches she does are related to making a decision. So I asked for an example. It played out much like I envision a convo with my daughter will go when she's old enough to ask, "Why?"

"Sometimes I know what website I want to go to and just google it to get there," she said. Then the decision you're making is "What's the fastest way to find website X?"

"Sometimes I just want to browse and find a funny video." Then the decision you're making is "How should I spend the next 30 minutes entertaining myself?" or "What video will make me laugh?"

"What if I just want to learn about snorkeling?" Then the decision you're trying to make is "Where can I learn about snorkeling?"

"What if I just want to know when the Cubs are playing?" It's still likely tied to a decision. "Can the next Cubs game fit into my calendar?" or "Should I drive to that restaurant near Wrigley Field or take the CTA?"

Finally she realized she was not winning this one and gave up. (Hopefully, it will be that easy with my daughter!)

I realize it's all a game of semantics but I really do think every single search query ultimately ladders up to some decision a person is trying to make. And, it's only after accepting that fact, that one can see the potential for a player like Hunch if it can really crack the code. As I acknowledge in my article though, it will take time for this utility to become truly useful.

Unfortunately, I couldn't come up with the proper analogy for what everything about McD's and fast food ladders up to. Quenching hunger? That leaves out the entertainment/social aspect of going there.

Accordingly, I couldn't think of what the ultimate McDonald's killer would be. A pill that satisfies your hunger, costs less than $1, smells like french fries, tastes like any food you imagine, and gives you the feeling of being social? Sounds like something out of Harry Potter! Perhaps, that's why McD has been the category leader for so long.

Ok, without further ado, here's the blurb...

The Many Flavors of Search
There are many ways to slice and dice search query intent: Navigation vs. browsing. Entertainment vs. information. Commercial vs. non-commercial. Accordingly, there are many different types of search engines: General vs. vertical. Real-time vs. all-time. Assets vs. answers. Pages vs. people. Facts vs. decisions. Whenever a search startup goes out to raise money or a stalwart rebrands or advertises to steal share, it typically focuses on one of the aforementioned flavors of search and sprinkles on a dash of differentiation.Of course, the irony in all this is that Google already serves most, if not all, of the flavors above in some shape or form. And it serves them well.


Update: In a post on the Hunch blog Chris Dixon talks about how far Hunch has come in the few weeks since its launch (from 70% success rate to 81%) and how far it still has to go.

I Dream of Bing-y

This ain't the first time I've repurposed a Facebook update as a blog post. But it's the first time I've done so with a call to action. Please take 2 seconds to vote for my picture to be the Bing homepage background. (Be my Bing-man?)

In case you're wondering, those are the ocean villas at the Intercontinental resort in Bora Bora and, yes, it's every bit as fabulous at it looks. The coffee tables in the rooms slide open so you can feed the fish.

Update: Social media guru Jeff Campbell pointed out that you need to join the app before you can vote. So search Bing on Facebook (or, shall I say, google Bing) and then join the photo contest and then vote for Pedro! Not quite a 2 second endeavor anymore but much appreciated! Don't worry, I never forget the little people!

Microsoft to Sell Razorfish... Finally!

This morning @LenKendall shared a link to a blurb in the Financial Times reporting that Microsoft is looking to sell off Razorfish (fka Avenue A Razorfish). All I can say is... s'bout time!

This was #9 on the list of things I'd do if I were running Microsoft. As I said last August, "I never understood why Microsoft was able to hang onto Ave A but everyone was up in arms until Google divested Performics. This is a complete conflict of interest. Ave A buys media from Microsoft and builds optimized Web sites for Live Search. I don't care what kind of firewalls you put up between these groups, it's impossible for Ave A to be impartial when creating media plans when its financial health is tied to Microsoft's profit. And vice versa with Microsoft's incentive to help Ave A succeed in the SEO space."

Update 8/10: Per the WSJ, Microsoft has agreed to sell Razorish to Publicis for $530 million. But the conflict lives on...

"As part of the pact, Publicis has entered a 'strategic alliance' with Microsoft, which includes a five-year media-buying relationship. In return for buying a certain amount of display and search advertising on Microsoft properties, Publicis will receive better ad rates."

Looks like Razorfish clients can still expect to see a disproportionate amount of Microsoft reco's on their media plans.

Google It With Bing

Hilarious spoof. Reinforces how hard it is to break the Google habit. Hat tip to David J Barnes who spotted this on Today's Big Thing.

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions... So Many to Make, So Few Engines to Choose.

On Monday I put out a call via Twitter to see if anyone could guess what I'd be writing about this week in my Search Insider column.

Most of the responses were related to Bing. And, in a way, they were right. I do talk about Bing and the idea of decision engines.

Others thought I'd dig into Twitter or social media.

Some of the responses were downright wacky (albeit fair) such as @unsavory's "Pink Socks: The Do's & Don'ts of Wearing Pastels in the Workplace."

@RobWilk nailed it though with this one: "How to use Twitter to generate interest in an upcoming Search Insider column?"

Somehow no-one guessed I'd be revisiting Hunch -- my Google Killer muse. I'm surprised no-one got it given my recent coverage of this week's public launch of Hunch.com.

At any rate, here's the blurb...

Is Hunch The IPhone Of Search?

As much as I like Bing and think that it has effectively closed the gap with Google from a user experience perspective, it's going to require drastic measures to catch Google's market share and revenue. That said, as Microsoft has often stated, we're still in the early innings of the search game and Bing may just be the rally-inducing hit Microsoft needs. But Bing is still a search engine -- actually, more of a search portal. What search needs is an iPhone. What search needs is a decision engine. Not a search engine with a tagline that says decision engine, but a true decision engine.

Will Bing Yield More Bang for Ad Bucks?

Today Compete.com released data showing that seemed to reaffirm the two point increase in search share for Bing that comScore reported on Tuesday and I discussed in my last post. However, interestingly, Compete saw little change in share for Google and Yahoo so it's likely that Bing stole share from Ask or other smaller engines.

Perhaps, even more notable was the drop in avg. queries per user reported for Bing vs. Live Search. Prior to Bing's launch, MSFT searchers performed an avg. of 5.2 queries per person. Post-launch, that number is 3.9 -- a drop of 25%!

So, while Bing may indeed be helping searchers find what they're looking for better, they're displaying fewer results pages which means fewer ads, fewer clicks, and fewer dollars. For this equation to work in the long run, Bing needs to hope that its increased relevancy will bring more searchers to offset the fewer searches per searcher. Got that?

Look at it this way -- with a 25% decrease in queries per searcher, Bing will need to get 25% more searchers just to get back to even in terms of ad revenue. A two point lift in share translates roughly to 20% more searchers so Bing is close but will have to scratch another point or two.

Now, of course, it's not that cut and dry. With more relevant results comes more user- engagement. With more user-engagement comes higher click-rates on ads. And with higher click-rates comes higher effective yield per page in terms of ad revenue. So, Bing may be running break-even right now in terms of more searchers but fewer searches per searcher.

In theory, more relevancy should also drive higher conversion rates as people have less searching getting in the way of their purchasing. Higher conversion rates means advertisers will be willing to pay more per click, thus, boosting Bing ad revenue.

Now, all of this is speculation and it's way to early to tell what impact Bing will have on consumer search habits and advertiser performance (ya heard me, analysts and investors?!?) but one thing's certain -- Bing is coming out of the gates with a Bang.

Apparently I'm Not the Only One Binging

Today comScore released data showing a 20% week-over-week increase in share of search results pages and 10% lift in searcher penetration for the week of Bing's launch. Who says advertising doesn't work?

It will be interesting to see if Bing can improve on or even just sustain these numbers. It's inevitable that some folks will hear about Bing, try it once and decide it's not much different from Google and go back to their old habits. Others may just become converts though. As I've said before, even if Bing can steal a couple small points of share, that translates to many millions of dollars for Microsoft.

Update 6/17: New data from comScore today showing Bing's market share continuing to grow -- up to 16.7% share of searcher penetration and 12.1% of all search results pages.

Update 7/18: I'm tracking the latest search market share numbers in my post "Inching Along: Bing up a Fraction."

Hunched Over

Last week I got a note that Hunch is scheduled for a June 15 public launch. I hadn't been very active on the site these past couple of weeks -- too busy binging it. When I logged back in today to see what I'd been missing, I had this notification waiting for me that the topic I submitted, "Will Hunch be bigger than Google one day?" was declined. Ruh roh. Can't be a good omen...

OK, now that I've gotten the obligatory snarkiness out of the way (truth is, it really wasn't a real decision I submitted anyway so the community was right to reject it), I can proceed with my review. Having spent the last 30 minutes playing around with Hunch (hunching it? getting hunched? satisfying my hunches?) I must say I'm impressed how far it's come since I first tried it. The community has certainly seeded some interesting threads allowing the "decision-engine" to learn and evolve. Clearly, Hunch gets better the more its used.

According to Hunch, more than 40,000 people have used it during this preview stage. And, on average, they've answered more than 120 questions about themselves. There's no doubt teaching Hunch about yourself is the best way to derive value from it. Here are some of the topics that were recommended for me...


Given how heavily the Bing vs. Google debate has been weighing on my mind, I decided to "play" the topic, "Which search engine should I use?" Sure enough, this topic has been played 178 times since being created on March 30th. Here's the qualifying question I was asked...

I selected general engine and, bing, my decision was made...


Why did Hunch pick this? Good question. Fortunately, there's a link for that...

There's also a list of pro's and con's for the decision as outlined by other Hunch-seekers like me. (They even have little ratings next to the usernames to show how closely their preferences match mine, presumably so I can decide how reliable their comments are.)

And therein lies the beauty of this platform. Notice there were no keywords or queries here. Just a nice linear progression and results presented based on a combination of indexed information from the web, my personal preferences and crowd-sourced data. Of course, Hunch will not always get it right. (But "right" is subjective anyway, right?) There is a built-in feedback mechanism so it can learn and most of the other "decisions" I've tested Hunch on ask more than one qualifying question before returning an answer. (I guess Google was just SO obvious!)

Here's a more practical example -- "Where should I eat in Chicago?" I'll spare you all the screens and just share the "Why did Hunch pick this?" from the end as it shows the qualifying Q's that led up to this answer...

Seems to me like you could take Bing's first TV commercial and swap Hunch in. Hunch is not about keywords and queries. (The only time keywords are used is to map the question you've asked to others that have already been "played.") And it's not about spouting off a bunch of related information sending you down a wormhole of links and facts. It's about helping you make a decision.

As much of an upgrade for Microsoft as Bing is (to the point where it's barely recognizable from Google) it's not really a decision engine. Heck, it's not even a search engine. I like how David Berkowitz characterized it as a search portal.

Is Hunch the real decision engine? Wait 'til June 15th and decide for yourself.