Last August I wrote a blog post about how attention merchants were sucking the value out of online publishing. In it I noted how the Yahoo! Directory disappeared & how even DMOZ saw a sharp drop in traffic & rankings over the past few years.
The concept of a neutral web is dead. In its place is agenda-driven media.
- Politically charged misinformed snippets.
- Ads cloaked as content.
- Public relations propaganda.
- Mostly correct (but politically insensitive) articles being “fact checked” where a minor detail is disputed to label the entire piece as not credible.
As the tech oligarchs broadly defund publishing, the publishers still need to eat. Aggregate information quality declines to make the numbers work. Companies which see their ad revenues slide 20%, 30% or 40% year after year can’t justify maintaining the labor-intensive yet unmonetized side projects.
There is Wikipedia, but it is not without bias & beyond the value expressed in the hidden bias most of the remaining value from it flows on through to the attention merchant / audience aggregation / content scraper platforms.
Last month DMOZ announced they were closing on March 14th without much fanfare. And on March 17th the directory went offline.
A number of people have pushed to preserve & archive the DMOZ data. Some existing DMOZ editors are planning on launching a new directory under a different name but as of the 17th DMOZ editors put up a copy at dmoztools.net. Jim Boykin scraped DMOZ & uploaded a copy here. A couple other versions of DMOZ have been published at OpenDirectoryProject.org & Freemoz.org.
Although site policies suggest that an individual site should be submitted to only one category, as of October 2007, Topix.com, a news aggregation site operated by DMOZ founder Rich Skrenta, has more than 17,000 listings.
Early in the history of DMOZ, its staff gave representatives of selected companies, such as Rolling Stone or CNN, editing access in order to list individual pages from their websites. Links to individual CNN articles were added until 2004, but were entirely removed from the directory in January 2008 due to the content being outdated and not considered worth the effort to maintain.
but by-and-large it added value to the structure of the web.
As search has advanced (algorithmic evolution, economic power, influence over publishers, enhanced bundling of distribution & user tracking) general web directories haven’t been able to keep pace. Ultimately the web is a web of links & pages rather than a web of sites. Many great sites span multiple categories. Every large quality site has some misinformation on it. Every well-known interactive site has some great user contributions & user generated spam on it. Search engines have better signals about what pages are important & which pages have maintained importance over time. As search engines have improved link filtering algorithms & better incorporated user tracking in rankings, broad-based manual web directories had no chance.
The web of pages vs web of sites concept can be easily observed in how some of the early successful content platforms have broken down their broad-based content portals into a variety of niche sites.
When links were (roughly) all that mattered, leveraging a website’s link authority meant it was far more profitable for a large entity to keep publishing more content on the one main site. That is how eHow became the core of a multi-billion Dollar company.
Demand Media showed other publishers the way. And if the other existing sites were to stay competitive, they also had to water down content quality to make the numbers back out. The problem with this was the glut of content was lower ad rates. And the decline in ad rates was coupled with a shift away from a links-only view of search relevancy to a model based on weighting link profiles against user engagement metrics.
Websites with lots of links, lots of thin content & terrible engagement metrics were hit.
Kristen Moore, vp of marketing for Demand Media, explained what drove the most egregious aspects of eHow’s editorial strategy: “There’s some not very bright people out there.”
eHow improved their site design, drastically reduced their ad density, removed millions of articles from their site, and waited. However nothing they did on that domain name was ever going to work. They dug too deep of a hole selling the growth story to pump a multi-billion Dollar valuation. And they generated so much animosity from journalists who felt overwork & underpaid that even when they did rank journalists would typically prefer to link to anything but them.
The flip side of that story is the newspaper chains, which rushed to partner with Demand Media to build eHow-inspired sections on their sites.
- the Arizona Republic
- Even the bastion of left-wing thinking Salon couldn’t ignore the easy money opportunity.
Brands which enjoy the Google brand subsidy are also quite hip to work with Demand Media, which breathes new life into once retired content: “Sometimes Demand will even dust off old content that’s been published but is no longer live and repurpose it for a brand.”
As Facebook & Google grew more dominant in the online ad ecosystem they aggressively moved to suck in publisher content & shift advertiser spend onto their core properties. The rise of time spent on social sites only made it harder for websites to be sought out destination. Google also effectively cut off direct distribution by consolidating & de-monetizing the RSS reader space then shutting down a project they easily could have left run.
As the web got more competitive, bloggers & niche publications which were deeply specialized were able to steal marketshare in key verticals by leveraging a differentiated editorial opinion.
Even if they couldn’t necessarily afford to build strong brands via advertising, they were worthy of a follow on some social media channels & perhaps an email subscription. And the best niche editorial remains worthy of a direct visit:
Everything about Techmeme and its lingering success seems to defy the contemporary wisdom of building a popular website. It publishes zero original reporting and is not a social network. It doesn’t have a mobile app or a newsletter or even much of a social presence beyond its Twitter account, which posts dry commodity news with zero flair for clickability.
As a work around to the Panda hits, sites like eHow are now becoming collections of niche-focused sites (Cuteness.com, Techwalla.com, Sapling.com, Leaf.tv, etc will join Livestrong.com & eHow.com). It appears to be working so far…
…but they may only be 1 Panda update away from finding out the new model isn’t sustainable either.
About.com has done the same thing (TheSpruce.com, Verywell.com, Lifewire.com, TheBalance.com). Hundreds of millions of Dollars are riding on the hope that as the algorithms keep getting more granular they won’t discover moving the content to niche brands wasn’t enough.
As content moves around search engines with billions of Dollars in revenue can recalibrate rankings for each page & adjust rankings based on user experience. Did an influential “how to” guide become irrelevant after a software or hardware update? If so, they can see it didn’t solve the user’s problem and rank a more recent document which reflects the current software or hardware. Is a problem easy to solve with a short snippet of content? If so, that can get scraped into the search results.
Web directories which are built around sites rather than pages have no chance of competing against the billions of Dollars of monthly search ads & the full cycle user tracking search companies like Google & Bing can do with their integrated search engines, ad networks, web browsers & operating systems.
Arguably in most cases the idea of neutral-based publishing no longer works on the modern web. The shill gets exclusive stories. The political polemic gets automatic retweets from those who identify. The content which lacks agenda probably lacks the economics to pay for ads & buy distribution unless people can tell the creator loves what they do so much it influences them enough to repeatedly visit & perhaps pay for access.
- Published in Uncategorized
There may be a couple exceptions which prove the rule, but new TLDs are generally an awful investment for everyone except the registry operator.
Here is the short version…
Imagine registering a domain for $10, building a business on it, and then learning the renewal fee will increase to hundreds of $ a year.— Elliot Silver (@DInvesting) March 7, 2017
And the long version…
About a half-decade ago I wrote about how Google devalued domain names from an SEO perspective & there have been a number of leading “category killer” domains which have repeatedly been recycled from startup to acquisition to shut down to PPC park page to buy now for this once in a lifetime opportunity in an endless water cycle.
The central web platforms are becoming ad heavy, which in turn decreases the reach of anything which is not an advertisement. For the most valuable concepts / markets / keywords ads eat up the entire interface for the first screen full of results. Key markets like hotels might get a second round of vertical ads to further displace the concept of organic results.
It isn’t just gTLD’s that are stalled. ALL extensions are stalling. The demand by END USERS in 2017 is not what it was years ago. #Domains
— Rick Schwartz (@DomainKing) March 1, 2017
Proprietary, Closed-Ecosystem Roach Motels
The tech monopolies can only make so much money by stuffing ads onto their own platform. To keep increasing their take they need to increase the types, varieties & formats of media they host and control & keep the attention on their platform.
Both Google & Facebook are promoting scams where they feed on desperate publishers & suck a copy of the publisher’s content into being hosted by the tech monopoly platform de jour & sprinkle a share of the revenues back to the content sources.
They may even pay a bit upfront for new content formats, but then after the market is primed the deal shifts to where (once again) almost nobody other than the tech monopoly platform wins.
The attempt to “own” the web & never let users go is so extreme both companies will make up bogus statistics to promote their proprietary / fake open / actually closed standards.
If you ignore how Google’s AMP double, triple, or quadruple counts visitors in Google Analytics the visit numbers look appealing.
But the flip side of those fake metrics is actual revenues do not flow.
Facebook has the same sort of issues, with frequently needing to restate various metrics while partners fly blind.
Have you tried Angry Birds lately? It’s a swamp of dark patterns. All extractive logic meant to trick you into another in-app payment. It’s the perfect example of what happens when product managers have to squeeze ever-more-growth out of ever-less-fertile lands to hit their targets year after year. … back to the incentives. It’s not just those infused by venture capital timelines and return requirements, but also the likes of tax incentives favoring capital gains over income. … that’s the truly insidious part of the tech lords solution to everything. This fantasy that they will be greeted as liberators. When the new boss is really a lot like the old boss, except the big stick is replaced with the big algorithm. Depersonalizing all punishment but doling it out just the same. … this new world order is being driven by a tiny cabal of monopolies. So commercial dissent is near impossible. … competition is for the little people. Pitting one individual contractor against another in a race to the bottom. Hoarding all the bargaining power at the top. Disparaging any attempts against those at the bottom to organize with unions or otherwise.
To be a success on the attention platforms you have to push toward the edges. But as you become successful you become a target.
And the dehumanized “algorithm” is not above politics & public relations.
Pewdiepie is the biggest success story on the YouTube platform. When he made a video showing some of the absurd aspects of Fiverr it led to a WSJ investigation which “uncovered” a pattern of anti-semitism. And yet one of the reporters who worked on that story wrote far more offensive and anti-semetic tweets. The hypocrisy of the hit job didn’t matter. They still were able to go after Pewdiepie’s ad relationships to cut him off from Disney’s Maker Studios & the premium tier of YouTube ads.
The fact that he is an individual with broad reach means he’ll still be fine economically, but many other publishers would quickly end up in a death spiral from the above sequence.
If it can happen to a leading player in a closed ecosystem then the risk to smaller players is even greater.
In some emerging markets Facebook effectively *is* the Internet.
The Decline of Exact Match Domains
Domains have been so devalued (from an SEO perspective) that some names like PaydayLoans.net sell for about $3,000 at auction.
$3,000 can sound like a lot to someone with no money, but names like that were going for 6 figures at their peak.
Professional domain sellers participate in the domain auctions on sites like NameJet & SnapNames. Big keywords like [payday loans] in core trusted extensions are not missed. So if the 98% decline in price were an anomaly, at least one of them would have bid more in that auction.
Why did exact match domains fall so hard? In part because Google shifted from scoring the web based on links to considering things like brand awareness in rankings. And it is very hard to run a large brand-oriented ad campaign promoting a generically descriptive domain name. Sure there are a few exceptions like Cars.com & Hotels.com, but if you watch much TV you’ll see a lot more ads associated with businesses that are not built on generically descriptive domain names.
Not all domains have fallen quite that hard in price, but the more into the tail you go the less the domain acts as a memorable differentiator. If the barrier to entry increases, then the justification for spending a lot on a domain name as part of a go to market strategy makes less sense.
Brandable Names Also Lost Value
Arguably EMDs have lost more value than brandable domain names, but even brandable names have sharply slid.
If you go back a decade or two tech startups would secure their name (say Snap.com or Monster.com or such) & then try to build a business on it.
But in the current marketplace with there being many paths to market, some startups don’t even have a domain name at launch, but begin as iPhone or Android apps.
Now people try to create success on a good enough, but cheap domain name & then as success comes they buy a better domain name.
As long as domain redirects work, there’s no reason to spend heavily on a domain name for a highly speculative new project.
Rather then spending 6 figures on a domain name & then seeing if there is market fit, it is far more common to launch a site on something like getapp.com, joinapp.com, app.io, app.co, businessnameapp.com, etc.
This in turn means that rather than 10,000s of startups all chasing their core .com domain name off the start, people test whatever is good enough & priced close to $10. Then only after they are successful do they try to upgrade to better, more memorable & far more expensive domain names.
Money isn’t spent on the domain names until the project has already shown market fit.
One in a thousand startups spending $1 million is less than one in three startups spending $100,000.
New TLDs Undifferentiated, Risky & Overpriced
No Actual Marketing Being Done
Some of the companies which are registries for new TLDs talk up investing in marketing & differentiation for the new TLDs, but very few of them are doing much on the marketing front.
You may see their banner ads on domainer blogs & they may even pay for placement with some of the registries, but there isn’t much going on in terms of cultivating a stable ecosystem.
When Google or Facebook try to enter & dominate a new vertical, the end destination may be extractive rent seeking by a monopoly BUT off the start they are at least willing to shoulder some of the risk & cost upfront to try to build awareness.
Where are the domain registries who have built successful new businesses on some of their new TLDs? Where are the subsidies offered to key talent to help drive awareness & promote the new strings?
As far as I know, none of that stuff exists.
In fact, what is prevalent is the exact opposite.
So many of them are short sighted greed-based plays that they do the exact opposite of building an ecosystem … they hold back any domain which potentially might not be complete garbage so they can juice it for a premium ask price in the 10s of thousands of dollars.
While searching on GoDaddy Auctions for a client project I have seen new TLDs like .link listed for sale for MORE THAN the asking price of similar .org names.
If those prices had any sort of legitimate foundation then the person asking $30,000 for a .link would have bulk bought all the equivalent .net and .org names which are listed for cheaper prices.
But the prices are based on fantasy & almost nobody is dumb enough to pay those sorts of prices.
Anyone dumb enough to pay that would be better off buying their own registry rather than a single name.
The holding back of names is the exact opposite of savvy marketing investment. It means there’s no reason to use the new TLD if you either have to pay through the nose or use a really crappy name nobody will remember.
I didn’t buy more than 15 of Uniregistry’s domains because all names were reserved in the first place and I didn’t feel like buying 2nd tier domains … Domainers were angry when the first 2 Uniregistry’s New gTLDs (.sexy and .tattoo) came out and all remotely good names were reserved despite Frank saying that Uniregistry would not reserve any domains.
Who defeats the race to the bottom aspects of the web by starting off from a “we only sell shit” standpoint?
And that’s why these new TLDs are a zero.
Defaults Have Value
Many online verticals are driven by winner take most monopoly economics. There’s a clear dominant leader in each of these core markets: social, search, short-form video, long-form video, retail, auctions, real estate, job search, classifieds, etc. Some other core markets have consolidated down to 3 or 4 core players who among them own about 50 different brands that attack different parts of the market.
Almost all the category leading businesses which dominate aggregate usage are on .com domains.
Contrast the lack of marketing for new TLDs with all the marketing one sees for the .com domain name.
Local country code domain names & .com are not going anywhere. And both .org and .net are widely used & unlikely to face extreme price increases.
Hosing The Masses…
A decade ago domainers were frustrated Verisign increased the price of .com domains in ~ 5% increments:
Every mom, every pop, every company that holds a domain name had no say in the matter. ICANN basically said to Verisign: “We agree to let you hose the masses if you stop suing us”.
I don’t necessarily mind paying more for domains so much as I mind the money going to a monopolistic regulator which has historically had little regard for the registrants/registrars it should be serving
Those 5% or 10% shifts were considered “hosing the masses.”
Imagine what sort of blowback PIR would get from influential charities if they tried to increase the price of .org domains 30-fold overnight. It would be such a public relations disaster it would never be considered.
Domain registries are not particularly expensive to run. A person who has a number of them can run each of them for less than the cost of a full time employee – say $25,000 to $50,00 per year.
And yet, the very people who complained about Verisign’s benign price increases, monopolistic abuses & rent extraction are now pushing massive price hikes:
.Hosting and .juegos are going up from about $10-$20 retail to about $300. Other domains will also see price increases.
Here’s the thing with new TLD pricing: registry operators can increase prices as much as they want with just six months’ notice.
in its applications, Uniregistry said it planned to enter into a contractual agreement to not increase its prices for five years.
Why would anyone want to build a commercial enterprise (or anything they care about) on such a shoddy foundation?
If a person promises…
- no hold backs of premium domains, then reserves 10s of thousands of domains
- no price hikes for 5 years, then hikes prices
- the eventual price hikes being inline with inflation, then hikes prices 3,000%
That’s 3 strikes and the batter is out.
Doing the Math
The claim the new TLDs need more revenues to exist are untrue. Running an extension costs maybe $50,000 per year. If a registry operator wanted to build a vibrant & stable ecosystem the first step would be dumping the concept of premium domains to encourage wide usage & adoption.
There are hundreds of these new TLD extensions and almost none of them can be trusted to be a wise investment when compared against similar names in established extensions like .com, .net, .org & CCTLDs like .co.uk or .fr.
There’s no renewal price protection & there’s no need, especially as prices on the core TLDs have sharply come down.
Domain Pricing Trends
Aggregate stats are somewhat hard to come by as many deals are not reported publicly & many sites which aggregate sales data also list minimum prices.
However domains have lost value for many reasons
- declining SEO-related value due to the search results becoming over-run with ads (Google keeps increasing their ad clicks 20% to 30% year over year)
- broad market consolidation in key markets like travel, ecommerce, search & social
- Google & Facebook are eating OVER 100% of online advertising growth – the rest of industry is shrinking in aggregate
- are there any major news sites which haven’t struggled to monetize mobile?
- there is a reason there are few great indy blogs compared to a decade ago
- rising technical costs in implementing independent websites (responsive design, HTTPS, AMP, etc.) “Closed platforms increase the chunk size of competition & increase the cost of market entry, so people who have good ideas, it is a lot more expensive for their productivity to be monetized. They also don’t like standardization … it looks like rent seeking behaviors on top of friction” – Gabe Newell
- harder to break into markets with brand-biased relevancy algorithms (increased chunk size of competition)
- less value in trying to build a brand on a generic name, which struggles to rank in a landscape of brand-biased algorithms (inability to differentiate while being generically descriptive)
- decline in PPC park page ad revenues
- for many years Yahoo! hid the deterioration in their core business by relying heavily on partners for ad click volumes, but after they switched to leveraging Bing search, Microsoft was far more interested with click quality vs click quantity
- absent the competitive bid from Yahoo!, Google drastically reduced partner payouts
- most web browsers have replaced web address bars with dual function search boxes, drastically reducing direct navigation traffic
All the above are the mechanics of “why” prices have been dropping, but it is also worth noting many of the leading portfolios have been sold.
If the domain aftermarket is as vibrant as some people claim, there’s no way the Marchex portfolio of 200,000+ domains would have sold for only $28.1 million a couple years ago.
RegistrarStats shows .com registrations have stopped growing & other extensions like .net, .org, .biz & .info are now shrinking.
Both aftermarket domain prices & the pool of registered domains on established gTLDs are dropping.
I know I’ve dropped hundreds & hundreds of domains over the past year. That might be due to my cynical views of the market, but I did hold many names for a decade or more.
As barrier to entry increases, many of the legacy domains which could have one day been worth developing have lost much of their value.
And the picked over new TLDs are an even worse investment due to the near infinite downside potential of price hikes, registries outright folding, etc.
Most of the registration graphs for new TLDs are far uglier than the one posted above. China will not save the new gTLDs.
— The Domains (@thedomains) March 14, 2017
Into this face of declining value there is a rush of oversupply WITH irrational above-market pricing. And then the registries which spend next to nothing on marketing can’t understand why their great new namespaces went nowhere.
Any baggage they may carry is less than the risk of going with an unproven new extension without any protections whatsoever.
Losing Faith in the Zimbabwe Dollar
Who really loses is anyone who read what these domain registry operators wrote & trusted them.
Uniregistry does not believe that registry fees should rise when the costs of other technology services have uniformly trended downward, simply because a registry operator believes it can extract higher profit from its base of registrants.
How does one justify a 3000% price hike after stating “Our prices are fixed and only indexed to inflation after 5 years.”
Are they pricing these names in Zimbabwe Dollars? Or did they just change their minds in a way that hurt anyone who trusted them & invested in their ecosystem?
Frank Schilling warned about the dangers of lifting price controls
The combination of “presumptive renewal” and the “lifting of price controls on registry services” is incredibly dangerous.
Imagine buying a home, taking on a large mortgage, remodeling, moving in, only to be informed 6 months later that your property taxes will go up 10,000% with no better services offered by local government. The government doesn’t care if you can’t pay your tax/mortgage because they don’t really want you to pay your tax… they want you to abandon your home so they can take your property and resell it to a higher payer for more money, pocketing the difference themselves, leaving you with nothing.
This agreement as written leaves the door open to exactly that type of scenario
He didn’t believe the practice to be poor.
Rather he felt he would have been made poorer, unless he was the person doing it:
It would be the mother of all Internet tragedies and a crippling blow to ICANN’s relevance if millions of pioneering registrants were taxed out of their internet homes as a result of the greed of one registry and the benign neglect, apathy or tacit support of its master.
It is a highly nuanced position.
Imagine registering a domain for $10, building a business on it, and then learning the renewal fee will increase to hundreds of $ a year.— Elliot Silver (@DInvesting) March 7, 2017
Update: Shortly after the sharp pricing increases were announced GoDaddy dropped Uniregistry domain names.
- Published in Uncategorized
When Compete.com launched with credits-based pricing well over a decade ago I felt like a kid in a candy store using their competitive research tool. Recently Compete.com announced they were shutting down, but many of the link analysis & competitive research tools which leverage scraping have also started licensing clickstream data from sources like Clickstre.am & JumpShot.
These sorts of features add a lot of value to traditional keyword tools, as they can highlight the CTR on ads vs organic results & show if people click on anything after they search for a particular term.
When I read Ahref’s recent blog post about integrating clickstream data I got that same kid in a candy store feeling I got when I first used Compete. Some highlights…
- their keyword database contains over 3 billion keywords
- they offer localized search volumes
- searches with clicks vs searches without clicks
- clicks per search
- repeat searches metric
- organic vs ad clicks
As an example of how the searches with clicks feature is helpful, consider Google’s recently announced RGB conversion feature
In that image you can see how the feature displaces the result set.
What’s cool about the Ahrefs feature is you can also see what sort of impact that feature has on click volumes.
After 1 month, 20% of the searches for [RGB to HEX] no longer had any clicks to an external website.
On the second month it looks like the “no click” rate was closer to 7%, so perhaps some of the initial additional search volume was driven by people searching for the related keywords after blogs covered the new feature.
But the nice thing about the feature is you can see how the click rate changes over time as the feature evolves.
In some areas like weather Google ends up dominating most the user behavior with their in-SERP feature.
About half of all weather keyword searches do not click on any listings. And then of those which do click, about 20% of people click on an ad.
That means the potential organic click volume for that keyword is only about 40% of the initial search volume estimates.
Search results keep getting more interactive features & some of them appear to be click black holes. Literally…
You guys, I’ve discovered a SERP black hole! I’m on #200 suggested PAA for this SERP?! Has anyone else seen an infinite PAA SERP before? pic.twitter.com/YgZDVWdWJ9— Britney Muller (@BritneyMuller) November 23, 2016
Here is a new item comparison feature table.
As more of the value chain appears in the search results, more of the value chain which formerly appeared on websites disappears. This is true from a wide range of aspects including ad sales, content hosting, ad blocking & brand value.
General Ad Sales
No click into the publisher’s site means no ad revenue for the publisher. Voice search will only accelerate the declines seen from mobile, which shifted user attention away from large screens with many listings to smaller screens with fewer listings & a far higher ad ratio in the search results.
Facebook Instant Articles & Google AMP
Google has already pushed hard to make hotel searches a pay-to-play vertical & yet some publishers are adopting AMP formatting in that vertical. Google is also forcing AMP down publisher’s throats in other verticals like recipes.
If central ad networks host your content then they get better user data for your content than you do as a publisher.
User Tracking, in Aggregate
Increased user tracking depresses premium ad sales & moves value from niche players to broad networks “Whether it’s a third party like Facebook or Google tracking across the web or an ISP leveraging its distribution arm, this is outside of consumer expectations. Importantly to the digital media industry, it also devalues the context and relationship of consumer trust which drives the businesses of premium publishers.”
Some large sites like Google or Facebook either pay ad blockers or technically work around them within their apps. By funding ad blockers exempting the search result page from having their ads blocked, Google is ultimately defunding competing ad networks.
As search results get noisier & more ad heavy, Google is trying to coerce brands into re-buying their pre-existing brand equity. These efforts are effective, as on some branded & navigational searches over half the click volume goes to the ads. Here are a few examples from Ahrefs. The orange bar shows what percent of the SERP clicks are on ads.
And the above doesn’t even account for…
- Google Maps being an ad-heavy search engine.
- the Google Trips app which prevent searches from happening on Google.
- The mid-tail of travel search on mobile where Google does away with the concept of organic search results.
- Direct booking features complementing traditional AdWords ads & hotel price ads.
- Google buying ITA Software to dominate flight search. Notice the most popular term is Google’s branded term & for the generic term [flights] 72% of people don’t click on any external site while 37% of the remaining 28% of searches click on an AdWords ad.
And almost everyone else in that industry is stuck licensing flight data from Google, as they own ITA Software.
So Google is eating the generic terms, the brand terms, and the search query pool more broadly.
There’s a reason Google’s online travel business is over twice the size of anyone else & has their biggest advertisers seeking more sustainable & more legitimate alternatives.
The biggest travel players are accustomed to Google’s moves and trying their best to adjust and work around them. Missing from this story is the fact that Google’s latest moves are making it nearly impossible for all but the smallest number of consumer travel startups to succeed. — Dennis Schaal
And some of the aggressive stuff carries over into other lines of business outside of travel. Google is also testing large image extensions on AdWords ads on cell phones that don’t leave room for even a second AdWords listing on the screen. When one invests in brand they have to start thinking about how much they are willing to pay Google as an ongoing tithing for their success. Look at the following ads where a competitor bidding on a competing brand drives the brand owner’s official site below the fold.
Google is willing to make their results worse (to the point they would consider something that looked like their search result page as an ad-heavy doorway redirect page of spam if hosted by anyone other than themselves) in order to monetize navigational searches.
What’s more, you can’t just opt out & ignore. When brands make agreements to not cross-bid Google has the FTC sue them.
On some high end fashion brands Google lists shopping ads which lead to third party sellers who sell used goods. Quite often counterfeits will also be in the mix. When the counterfeits are destroyed in the first wash, it is the brand owner who was took to the cleaners.
But there’s a solution to that… they can pay Google ever-increasing protection.
- Published in Uncategorized
- Just Make Great Content…
- Search Engine Engineering Fear
- Ignore The Eye Candy, It’s Poisoned
- Below The Fold = Out Of Mind
- Coercion Which Failed
- Embrace, Extend, Extinguish
- Dumb Pipes, Dumb Partnerships
- “User” Friendly
- The Numbers Can’t Work
- Mobile Search Index
- Tracking Users
Just Make Great Content…
Remember the whole shtick about good, legitimate, high-quality content being created for readers without concern for search engines – even as though search engines do not exist?
Whatever happened to that?
We quickly shifted from the above “ideology” to this:
The red triangle/exclamation point icon was arrived at after the Chrome team commissioned research around the world to figure out which symbols alarmed users the most.
Search Engine Engineering Fear
Google is explicitly spreading the message that they are doing testing on how to create maximum fear to try to manipulate & coerce the ecosystem to suit their needs & wants.
At the same time, the Google AMP project is being used as the foundation of effective phishing campaigns.
Scare users off of using HTTP sites AND host phishing campaigns.
Killer job Google.
Someone deserves a raise & some stock options. Unfortunately that person is in the PR team, not the product team.
Ignore The Eye Candy, It’s Poisoned
I’d like to tell you that I was preparing the launch of https://amp.secured.mobile.seobook.com but awareness of past ecosystem shifts makes me unwilling to make that move.
I see it as arbitrary hoop jumping not worth the pain.
If you are an undifferentiated publisher without much in the way of original thought, then jumping through the hoops make sense. But if you deeply care about a topic and put a lot of effort into knowing it well, there’s no reason to do the arbitrary hoop jumping.
Remember how mobilegeddon was going to be the biggest thing ever? Well I never updated our site layout here & we still outrank a company which raised & spent 10s of millions of dollars for core industry terms like [seo tools].
Though it is also worth noting that after factoring in increased ad load with small screen sizes & the scrape graph featured answer stuff, a #1 ranking no longer gets it done, as we are well below the fold on mobile.
Below the Fold = Out of Mind
In the above example I am not complaining about ranking #5 and wishing I ranked #2, but rather stating that ranking #1 organically has little to no actual value when it is a couple screens down the page.
Google indicated their interstitial penalty might apply to pop ups that appear on scroll, yet Google welcomes itself to installing a toxic enhanced version of the Diggbar at the top of AMP pages, which persistently eats 15% of the screen & can’t be dismissed. An attempt to dismiss the bar leads the person back to Google to click on another listing other than your site.
As bad as I may have made mobile search results appear earlier, I was perhaps being a little too kind. Google doesn’t even have mass adoption of AMP yet & they already have 4 AdWords ads in their mobile search results AND when you scroll down the page they are testing an ugly “back to top” button which outright blocks a user’s view of the organic search results.
What happens when Google suggests what people should read next as an overlay on your content & sells that as an ad unit where if you’re lucky you get a tiny taste of the revenues?
Is it worth doing anything that makes your desktop website worse in an attempt to try to rank a little higher on mobile devices?
Given the small screen size of phones & the heavy ad load, the answer is no.
I realize that optimizing a site design for mobile or desktop is not mutually exclusive. But it is an issue we will revisit later on in this post.
Coercion Which Failed
Many people new to SEO likely don’t remember the importance of using Google Checkout integration to lower AdWords ad pricing.
You either supported Google Checkout & got about a 10% CTR lift (& thus 10% reduction in click cost) or you failed to adopt it and got priced out of the market on the margin difference.
And if you chose to adopt it, the bad news was you were then spending yet again to undo it when the service was no longer worth running for Google.
How about when Google first started hyping HTTPS & publishers using AdSense saw their ad revenue crash because the ads were no longer anywhere near as relevant.
Not like Google cared much, as it is their goal to shift as much of the ad spend as they can onto Google.com & YouTube.
Google is now testing product ads on YouTube.
It is not an accident that Google funds an ad blocker which allows ads to stream through on Google.com while leaving ads blocked across the rest of the web.
Android Pay might be worth integrating. But then it also might go away.
It could be like Google’s authorship. Hugely important & yet utterly trivial.
Faces help people trust the content.
Then they are distracting visual clutter that need expunged.
Then they once again re-appear but ONLY on the Google Home Service ad units.
They were once again good for users!!!
Neat how that works.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish
Or it could be like Google Reader. A free service which defunded all competing products & then was shut down because it didn’t have a legitimate business model due to it being built explicitly to prevent competition. With the death of Google reader many blogs also slid into irrelevancy.
Their FeedBurner acquisition was icing on the cake.
Techdirt is known for generally being pro-Google & they recently summed up FeedBurner nicely:
Thanks, Google, For Fucking Over A Bunch Of Media Websites – Mike Masnick
Ultimately Google is a horrible business partner.
And they are an even worse one if there is no formal contract.
Dumb Pipes, Dumb Partnerships
When Google routinely acts so anti-competitive & abusive it is no surprise that some of the “standards” they propose go nowhere.
You can only get screwed so many times before you adopt a spirit of ambivalence to the avarice.
Google is the type of “partner” that conducts security opposition research on their leading distribution partner, while conveniently ignoring nearly a billion OTHER Android phones with existing security issues that Google can’t be bothered with patching.
Deliberately screwing direct business partners is far worse than coding algorithms which belligerently penalize some competing services all the while ignoring that the payday loan shop funded by Google leverages doorway pages.
BackChannel recently published an article foaming at the mouth promoting the excitement of Google’s AI:
This 2016-to-2017 Transition is going to move us from systems that are explicitly taught to ones that implicitly learn.” … the engineers might make up a rule to test against—for instance, that “usual” might mean a place within a 10-minute drive that you visited three times in the last six months. “It almost doesn’t matter what it is — just make up some rule,” says Huffman. “The machine learning starts after that.
The part of the article I found most interesting was the following bit:
After three years, Google had a sufficient supply of phonemes that it could begin doing things like voice dictation. So it discontinued the [phone information] service.
Google launches “free” services with an ulterior data motive & then when it suits their needs, they’ll shut it off and leave users in the cold.
As Google keeps advancing their AI, what do you think happens to your AMP content they are hosting? How much do they squeeze down on your payout percentage on those pages? How long until the AI is used to recap / rewrite content? What ad revenue do you get when Google offers voice answers pulled from your content but sends you no visitor?
The Numbers Can’t Work
A recent Wall Street Journal article highlighting the fast ad revenue growth at Google & Facebook also mentioned how the broader online advertising ecosystem was doing:
Facebook and Google together garnered 68% of spending on U.S. online advertising in the second quarter—accounting for all the growth, Mr. Wieser said. When excluding those two companies, revenue generated by other players in the U.S. digital ad market shrank 5%
The issue is NOT that online advertising has stalled, but rather that Google & Facebook have choked off their partners from tasting any of the revenue growth. This problem will only get worse as mobile grows to a larger share of total online advertising:
By 2018, nearly three-quarters of Google’s net ad revenues worldwide will come from mobile internet ad placements. – eMarketer
Media companies keep trusting these platforms with greater influence over their business & these platforms keep screwing those same businesses repeatedly.
You pay to get likes, but that is no longer enough as edgerank declines. Thanks for adopting Instant Articles, but users would rather see live videos & read posts from their friends. You are welcome to pay once again to advertise to the following you already built. The bigger your audience, the more we will charge you! Oh, and your direct competitors can use people liking your business as an ad targeting group.
Worse yet, Facebook & Google are even partnering on core Internet infrastructure.
Any hope of AMP turning the corner on the revenue front is a “no go”:
“We want to drive the ecosystem forward, but obviously these things don’t happen overnight,” Mr. Gingras said. “The objective of AMP is to have it drive more revenue for publishers than non-AMP pages. We’re not there yet”.
Publishers who are critical of AMP were reluctant to speak publicly about their frustrations, or to remove their AMP content. One executive said he would not comment on the record for fear that Google might “turn some knob that hurts the company.”
Look at that.
Leadership through fear once again.
At least they are consistent.
As more publishers adopt AMP, each publisher in the program will get a smaller share of the overall pie.
Just look at Google’s quarterly results for their current partners. They keep showing Google growing their ad clicks at 20% to 40% while partners oscillate between -15% and +5% quarter after quarter, year after year.
In the past quarter Google grew their ad clicks 42% YoY by pushing a bunch of YouTube auto play video ads, faster search growth in third world markets with cheaper ad prices, driving a bunch of lower quality mobile search ad clicks (with 3 then 4 ads on mobile) & increasing the percent of ad clicks on “own brand” terms (while sending the FTC after anyone who agrees to not cross bid on competitor’s brands).
The lower quality video ads & mobile ads in turn drove their average CPC on their sites down 13% YoY.
The partner network is relatively squeezed out on mobile, which makes it shocking to see the partner CPC off more than core Google, with a 14% YoY decline.
What ends up happening is eventually the media outlets get sufficiently defunded to where they are sold for a song to a tech company or an executive at a tech company. Alibaba buying SCMP is akin to Jeff Bezos buying The Washington Post.
The Wall Street Journal recently laid off reporters. The New York Times announced they were cutting back local cultural & crime coverage.
If news organizations of that caliber can’t get the numbers to work then the system has failed.
The Tribune Company, already through bankruptcy & perhaps the dumbest of the lot, plans to publish thousands of AI assisted auto-play videos in their articles every day. That will guarantee their user experience on their owned & operated sites is worse than just about anywhere else their content gets distributed to, which in turn means they are not only competing against themselves but they are making their own site absolutely redundant & a chore to use.
That the Denver Guardian (an utterly fake paper running fearmongering false stories) goes viral is just icing on the cake.
many Facebook users wish to connect with people and things that confirm their pre-existing opinions, whether or not they are true. … Giving people what they want to see will always draw more attention than making them work for it, in rather the same way that making up news is cheaper and more profitable than actually reporting the truth. – Ben Thompson
These tech companies are literally reshaping society & are sucking the life out of the economy, destroying adjacent markets & bulldozing regulatory concerns, all while offloading costs onto everyone else around them.
The crumbling of the American dream is a purple problem, obscured by solely red or solely blue lenses. Its economic and cultural roots are entangled, a mixture of government, private sector, community and personal failings. But the deepest root is our radically shriveled sense of “we.” … Until we treat the millions of kids across America as our own kids, we will pay a major economic price, and talk of the American dream will increasingly seem cynical historical fiction.
And the solution to killing the middle class, is, of course, to kill the middle class:
An FTC report recommended suing Google for their anti-competitive practices, but no suit was brought. The US Copyright Office Register was relieved of her job after she went against Google’s views on set top boxes. Years ago many people saw where this was headed:
“This is a major affront to copyright,” said songwriter and music publisher Dean Kay. “Google seems to be taking over the world – and politics … Their major position is to allow themselves to use copyright material without remuneration. If the Copyright Office head is towing the Google line, creators are going to get hurt.”
Singer Don Henley said Pallante’s ouster was “an enormous blow” to artists. “She was a champion of copyright and stood up for the creative community, which is one of the things that got her fired,” he said. … [Pallante’s replacement] Hayden “has a long track record of being an activist librarian who is anti-copyright and a librarian who worked at places funded by Google.”
And in spite of the growing importance of tech media coverage of the industry is a trainwreck:
This is what it’s like to be a technology reporter in 2016. Freebies are everywhere, but real access is scant. Powerful companies like Facebook and Google are major distributors of journalistic work, meaning newsrooms increasingly rely on tech giants to reach readers, a relationship that’s awkward at best and potentially disastrous at worst.
Being a conduit breeds exclusives. Challenging the grand narrative gets one blackballed.
Mobile Search Index
Google announced they are releasing a mobile first search index:
Although our search index will continue to be a single index of websites and apps, our algorithms will eventually primarily use the mobile version of a site’s content to rank pages from that site, to understand structured data, and to show snippets from those pages in our results. Of course, while our index will be built from mobile documents, we’re going to continue to build a great search experience for all users, whether they come from mobile or desktop devices.
There are some forms of content that simply don’t work well on a 350 pixel wide screen, unless they use a pinch to zoom format. But using that format is seen as not being mobile friendly.
Imagine you have an auto part database which lists alternate part numbers, price, stock status, nearest store with part in stock, time to delivery, etc. … it is exceptionally hard to get that information to look good on a mobile device. And good luck if you want to add sorting features on such a table.
The theory that using the desktop version of a page to rank mobile results is flawed because users might find something which is only available on the desktop version of a site is a valid point. BUT, at the same time, a publisher may need to simplify the mobile site & hide data to improve usability on small screens & then only allow certain data to become visible through user interactions. Not showing those automotive part databases to desktop users would ultimately make desktop search results worse for users by leaving huge gaps in the search results. And a search engine choosing to not index the desktop version of a site because there is a mobile version is equally short sighted. Desktop users would no longer be able to find & compare information from those automotive parts databases.
Once again money drives search “relevancy” signals.
Since Google will soon make 3/4 of their ad revenues on mobile that should be the primary view of the web for everyone else & alternate versions of sites which are not mobile friendly should be disappeared from the search index if a crappier lite mobile-friendly version of the page is available.
Amazon converts well on mobile in part because people already trust Amazon & already have an account registered with them. Most other merchants won’t be able to convert at anywhere near as well of a rate on mobile as they do on desktop, so if you have to choose between having a mobile friendly version that leaves differentiated aspects hidden or a destkop friendly version that is differentiated & establishes a relationship with the consumer, the deeper & more engaging desktop version is the way to go.
The heavy ad load on mobile search results only further combine with the low conversion rates on mobile to make building a relationship on desktop that much more important.
Even TripAdvisor is struggling to monetize mobile traffic, monetizing it at only about 30% to 33% the rate they monetize desktop & tablet traffic. Google already owns most the profits from that market.
Webmasters are better off NOT going mobile friendly than going mobile friendly in a way that compromises the ability of their desktop site.
Mobile-first: with ONLY a desktop site you’ll still be in the results & be findable. Recall how mobilegeddon didn’t send anyone to oblivion?— Gary Illyes (@methode) November 6, 2016
I am not the only one suggesting an over-simplified mobile design that carries over to a desktop site is a losing proposition. Consider Nielsen Norman Group’s take:
in the current world of responsive design, we’ve seen a trend towards insufficient information density and simplifying sites so that they work well on small screens but suboptimally on big screens.
Publishers are getting squeezed to subsidize the primary web ad networks. But the narrative is that as cross-device tracking improves some of those benefits will eventually spill back out into the partner network.
I am rather skeptical of that theory.
Facebook already makes 84% of their ad revenue from mobile devices where they have great user data.
They are paying to bring new types of content onto their platform, but they are only just now beginning to get around to test pricing their Audience Network traffic based on quality.
Priorities are based on business goals and objectives.
When these ad networks are strong & growing quickly they may be able to take a stand, but when growth slows the stock prices crumble, data security becomes less important during downsizing when morale is shattered & talent flees. Further, creating alternative revenue streams becomes vital “to save the company” even if it means selling user data to dangerous dictators.
The other big risk of such tracking is how data can be used by other parties.
Data is being used in all sorts of crazy ways the central ad networks are utterly unaware of. These crazy policies are not limited to other countries. Buying dog food with your credit card can lead to pet licensing fees. Even cheerful “wellness” programs may come with surprises.
Want to see what the future looks like?
About 2 months ago I saw a Facebook post done on behalf of a friend of mine. Gofundme was the plea. Her insurance wouldn’t cover her treatment for a recurring breast cancer and doctors wouldn’t start the treatment unless the full payment was secured in a advance. Really? Really. She was gainfully employed, had a full time, well paying job. But guess what? It wasn’t enough although hundreds of people donated.
This last week she died. She was 38 years old. She died not getting access to a treatment that may or may not have saved her life. She died having to hustle folks for funds to just have a chance to get access to another treatment option and she died while worrying about being financially ruined by her illness. Just horrid.
Is this the society we want? People forced to beg friends on gofundme for help so they can get access to medical treatment? Is this the society we are? Is this truly the best we can do?
Click here to read more.
- Published in Uncategorized
On Friday Google’s Gary Illyes announced Penguin 4.0 was now live.
Key points highlighted in their post are:
- Penguin is a part of their core ranking algorithm
- Penguin is now real-time, rather than something which periodically refreshes
- Penguin has shifted from being a sitewide negative ranking factor to a more granular factor
Things not mentioned in the post
- if it has been tested extensively over the past month
- if the algorithm is just now rolling out or if it is already done rolling out
- if the launch of a new version of Penguin rolled into the core ranking algorithm means old sites hit by the older versions of Penguin have recovered or will recover anytime soon
Since the update was announced, the search results have become more stable.
No signs of major SERP movement yesterday – the two days since Penguin started rolling out have been quieter than most of September.— Dr. Pete Meyers (@dr_pete) September 24, 2016
They still may be testing out fine tuning the filters a bit…
Fyi they’re still split testing at least 3 different sets of results. I assume they’re trying to determine how tight to set the filters.— SEOwner (@tehseowner) September 24, 2016
…but what exists now is likely to be what sticks for an extended period of time.
Penguin Algorithm Update History
- Penguin 1: April 24, 2012
- Penguin 2: May 26, 2012
- Penguin 3: October 5, 2012
- Penguin 4: May 22, 2013 (AKA: Penguin 2.0)
- Penguin 5: October 4, 2013 (AKA Penguin 2.1)
- Penguin 6: rolling update which began on October 17, 2014 (AKA Penguin 3.0)
- Penguin 7: September 23, 2016 (AKA Penguin 4.0)
Now that Penguin is baked into Google’s core ranking algorithms, no more Penguin updates will be announced. Panda updates stopped being announced last year. Instead we now get unnamed “quality” updates.
Volatility Over the Long Holiday Weekend
Earlier in the month many SEOs saw significant volatility in the search results, beginning ahead of Labor Day weekend with a local search update. The algorithm update observations were dismissed as normal fluctuations in spite of the search results being more volatile than they have been in over 4 years.
There are many reasons for search engineers to want to roll out algorithm updates (or at least test new algorithms) before a long holiday weekend:
- no media coverage: few journalists on the job & a lack of expectation that the PR team will answer any questions. no official word beyond rumors from self-promotional marketers = no story
- many SEOs outside of work: few are watching as the algorithms tip their cards.
- declining search volumes: long holiday weekends generally have less search volume associated with them. Thus anyone who is aggressively investing in SEO may wonder if their site was hit, even if it wasn’t.
The communications conflicts this causes between in-house SEOs and their bosses, as well as between SEO companies and their clients both makes the job of the SEO more miserable and makes the client more likely to pull back on investment, while ensuring the SEO has family issues back home as work ruins their vacation.
- fresh users: as people travel their search usage changes, thus they have fresh sets of eyes & are doing somewhat different types of searches. This in turn makes their search usage data more dynamic and useful as a feedback mechanism on any changes made to the underlying search relevancy algorithm or search result interface.
Algo Flux Testing Tools
Just about any of the algorithm volatility tools showed far more significant shift earlier in this month than over the past few days.
One issue with looking at any of the indexes is the rank shifts tend to be far more dramatic as you move away from the top 3 or 4 search results, so the algorithm volatility scores are much higher than the actual shifts in search traffic (the least volatile rankings are also the ones with the most usage data & ranking signals associated with them, so the top results for those terms tend to be quite stable outside of verticals like news).
You can use AWR’s flux tracker to see how volatility is higher across the top 20 or top 50 results than it is across the top 10 results.
Example Ranking Shifts
I shut down our membership site in April & spend most of my time reading books & news to figure out what’s next after search, but a couple legacy clients I am winding down working with still have me tracking a few keywords & one of the terms saw a lot of smaller sites (in terms of brand awareness) repeatedly slide and recover over the past month.
Notice how a number of sites would spike down on the same day & then back up. And then the pattern would repeat.
As a comparison, here is that chart over the past 3 months.
Notice the big ranking moves which became common over the past month were not common the 2 months prior.
Negative SEO Was Real
There is a weird sect of alleged SEOs which believes Google is omniscient, algorithmic false positives are largely a myth, AND negative SEO was never a real thing.
As it turns out, negative SEO was real, which likely played a part in Google taking years to roll out this Penguin update AND changing how they process Penguin from a sitewide negative factor to something more granular.
Update != Penalty Recovery
Part of the reason many people think there was no Penguin update or responded to the update with “that’s it?” is because few sites which were hit in the past recovered relative to the number of sites which ranked well until recently just got clipped by this algorithm update.
When Google updates algorithms or refreshes data it does not mean sites which were previously penalized will immediately rank again.
Some penalties (absent direct Google investment or nasty public relations blowback for Google) require a set amount of time to pass before recovery is even possible.
Google has no incentive to allow a broad-based set of penalty recoveries on the same day they announce a new “better than ever” spam fighting algorithm.
They’ll let some time base before the penalized sites can recover.
Further, many of the sites which were hit years ago & remain penalized have been so defunded for so long that they’ve accumulated other penalties due to things like tightening anchor text filters, poor user experience metrics, ad heavy layouts, link rot & neglect.
What to do?
So here are some of the obvious algorithmic holes left by the new Penguin approach…
- only kidding
- not sure that would even be a valid mindset in the current market
- hell, the whole ecosystem is built on quicksand
The trite advice is to make quality content, focus on the user, and build a strong brand.
But you can do all of those well enough that you change the political landscape yet still lose money.
“Mother Jones published groundbreaking story on prisons that contributed to change in govt policy. Cost $350k & generated $5k in ad revenue”— SEA☔☔LE SEO (@searchsleuth998) August 22, 2016
Google & Facebook are in a cold war, competing to see who can kill the open web faster, using each other as justification for their own predation.
And that is without getting hit by a penalty.
It is getting harder to win in search period.
And it is getting almost impossible to win in search by focusing on search as an isolated channel.
I never understood mentality behind Penguin “recovery” people. The spam links ranked you, why do you expect to recover once they’re removed?— SEOwner (@tehseowner) September 25, 2016
Efforts and investments in chasing the algorithms in isolation are getting less viable by the day.
Obviously removing them may get you out of algorithm, but then you’ll only have enough power to rank where you started before spam links.— SEOwner (@tehseowner) September 25, 2016
Anyone operating at scale chasing SEO with automation is likely to step into a trap.
When it happens, that player better have some serious savings or some non-Google revenues, because even with “instant” algorithm updates you can go months or years on reduced revenues waiting for an update.
And if the bulk of your marketing spend while penalized is spent on undoing past marketing spend (rather than building awareness in other channels outside of search) you can almost guarantee that business is dead.
“If you want to stop spam, the most straight forward way to do it is to deny people money because they care about the money and that should be their end goal. But if you really want to stop spam, it is a little bit mean, but what you want to do, is break their spirits.” – Matt Cutts
- Published in Uncategorized
Google recently made it much harder to receive accurate keyword data from the AdWords keyword tool.
They have not only grouped similar terms, but then they broadened out the data ranges to absurdly wide ranges like 10,000 to 100,000 searches a month. Only active AdWords advertisers receive (somewhat?) decent keyword data. And even with that, there are limitations. Try to view too many terms and you get:
“You’ve reached the maximum number of page views for this day. This page now shows ranges for search volumes. For a more detailed view, check back in 24 hours.”
Jennifer Slegg shared a quote from an AdWords advertiser who spoke with a representative:
“I have just spoken to a customer service manger from the Australia support help desk. They have advised me that there must be continuous activity in your google ad-words campaign (clicks and campaigns running) for a minimum of 3-4 months continuous in order to gain focused keyword results. If you are seeing a range 10-100 or 100-1k or 1k -10k its likely your adwords account does not have an active campaign or has not had continuous campaigns or clicks.”
So you not only need to be an advertiser, but you need to stay active for a quarter-year to a third of a year to get decent data.
Part of the sales pitch of AdWords/PPC was that you can see performance data right away, whereas SEO investments can take months or years to back out.
But with Google outright hiding keyword data even from active advertisers, it is probably easier and more productive for those advertisers to start elsewhere.
There are many other keyword data providers (Wordtracker, SEMrush, Wordze, Spyfu, KeywordSpy, Keyword Discovery, Moz, Compete.com, SimilarWeb, Xedant, Ubersuggest, KeywordTool.io, etc.) And there are newer entrants like the Keyword Keg Firefox extension & the brilliantly named KeywordShitter).
In light of Google’s push to help make the web more closed-off & further tilt the web away from the interests of searchers toward the interest of big advertisers*, we decided to do the opposite & recently upgraded our keyword tool to add the following features…
- expanded the results per search to 500
- we added negative match and modified broad match to the keyword export spreadsheet (along with already having phrase, broad & exact match)
Our keyword tool lists estimated search volumes, bid prices, cross links to SERPs, etc. Using it does require free account registration to use, but it is a one-time registration and the tool is free. And we don’t collect phone numbers, hard sell over the phone, etc. We even shut down our paid members area, so you are not likely to receive any marketing messages from us anytime soon.
Export is lightning quick AND, more importantly, we have a panda in our logo!
Here is what the web interface looks like
And here is an screenshot of data in Excel with the various keyword match types
If the tool looks like it is getting decent usage, we may upgrade it further to refresh the data more frequently, consider adding more languages, add a few more reference links to related niche sites in the footer cross-reference section, and maybe add a few other features.
“Every market has some rules and boundaries that restrict freedom of choice. A market looks free only because we so unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we fail to see them.” — Ha-Joon Chang
- Published in Uncategorized
What a fun past couple years it has been in the digital marketing landscape; we’ve seen hummingbirds, ads displacing organic listings, phantoms, ads displacing organic listings, rank brain, and of course ads displacing organic listings. It has been such a long time since my last post that back when I was last writing for SEObook we were still believing in the timelines provided by Google employees on when Penguin was going to run next. Remember that? Oh, the memories.
Idiot Proof SEO Concepts You Better Not Screw Up For Me
The reason I’m back is to share a tip. Normally I don’t share SEO tips because by sharing information on a tactic, I end up burning the tactic and killing whatever potential usable market value remained on its shelf life. Why share then? Because this isn’t something you can kill; it involves people. And killing people is bad. To explain how it works though, I need to explain the two concepts I’m smashing together like chocolate and peanut butter.
The chocolate, aka Influencer Marketing – my definition of influencer marketing is having someone tell your story for you. Some people view influencer marketing as paying someone like Kim Kardashian $50,000 to post a picture of herself on Instagram holding a sample of your new line of kosher pickles. While that does fit under my definition as well, I consider that aspirational influencer marketing since her audience is primarily comprised of being aspiring to be Kim. Also equally valid is having Sally your foodie neighbor posting that picture in exchange for getting a free jar of those delicious pickles; in this particular case though the influence would be considered peer level influence since Sally’s audience is going to be comprised largely of people that view Sally as their equal, and possibly recognize that Sally as a foodie knows her food. Personally, I am biased, but I prefer lots of peer influence campaigns than a single big budget aspirational influence campaign, but I digress. If you want to learn a lot more about differences in the campaign types, I spoke with Bronco on the ins and outs of influence.
The peanut butter, aka Online Reputation Management, aka ORM – while I would hope reputation management doesn’t need to be specifically defined, I’ll define it anyhow as changing the online landscape for the benefit of a client’s (or your own) reputation. Peanut butter is a really good analogy for ORM because a lot of work gets spread around in a lot of directions, from creating hundreds of thousands of properties designed to flood the SERPs and social channels as a tail that wags the dog, to straight up negative SEO. Yeah, I said it. If negative SEO wasn’t made so much more available due to Panda, Penguin, and the philosophical neative a priori shift, in ORM would not be the industry that it is today.
So what’s the tip? You can combine these two concepts for your clients, and you can do it in a variety of different ways. Let’s walk through a few…
- Use aspirational influence to find a blogger/writer to talk about your client or product.
- Use peer influence indirectly to let a more difficult to approach blogger/writer “discover” your client and write about him or her.
- Use aspirational influence as a means to gain links to some properties. Seriously, this works really well. Some audiences will write a series of articles on whatever certain individuals writes about.
- Use peer influence to change tone/meaning of a negative article to something more benign.
- Use peer influence to find bloggers/writers to discuss concepts that can only be disucssed by referencing you or your client.
- Use peer pressure influence to get material removed.
- Use aspirational influence to change the mind of blogger/writer (think politics – this works).
- Use peer influence to change links from one target to another in source material (this occurs quite a bit on Wikipedia too).
- THE™ TRUMP® CARD©: Use aspirational influence and peer influence in combination, which I call compulsion marketing, to inspire frightening movements and witchunts (coordinated DOS attacks, protests, crap link blasts, et al).
My business partner at my influencer marketing network Intellifluence, Terry Godier, and I also refer to some of the above topics under the umbrella of dark influence. I’m sure this list isn’t even close to exhaustive, mainly because I don’t want to go too deep on how scary one can get. If you need to address such things, I still take on select ORM clients at Digital Heretix and can help you out or refer you to a quality professional that will. Combining concepts and tactics is often a lot more fun than trying to approach a tactic singularly; when possible, work in multiple dimensions.
Think of a way that I missed or some cool concepts that could be paired to be more powerful? Let me know on Twitter.
- Published in Uncategorized
So far this year publishers have lost 52% their Facebook distribution due to:
- increased ad load (another record quarter for Facebook!!!)
- shifting of the news feed “relevancy” algorithm toward friends
- promotion of new formats, like live video (if they subsidize it with direct payments, they’re also algorithmically subsidizing its distribution)
Instant Articles may have worked for an instant, but many publishers are likely where they were before they made the Faustian bargain, except they now have less control over their content distribution and advertising while having the higher cost structure of supporting another content format.
When Facebook announced their news feed update to fight off clickbait headlines, it sure sounded a lot like the equivalent of Google’s Panda update. Glenn Gabe is one of the sharpest guys in the SEO field who regularly publishes insightful content & doesn’t blindly shill for the various platform monopolies dominating the online publishing industry & he had the same view I did.
Further cementing the “this is Panda” view was an AdAge article quoting some Facebook-reliant publishers. Glad we have already shifted our ways. Nice to see them moving in the same direction we are. etc. … It felt like reading a Richard Rosenblatt quote in 2011 about Demand Media’s strong working relationship with Google or how right after Panda their aggregate traffic level was flat.
Peter Kafka: Do you think that Google post was directed at you in any way?
Richard Rosenblatt: It’s not directed at us in any way.
P K: they wrote this post, which talks about content farms, and even though you say they weren’t talking about you, it left a lot of people scratching their heads.
R R: Let’s just say that we know what they’re trying to do. … He’s talking about duplicate, non-original content. Every single piece of ours is original. … our relationship is synergistic, and it’s a great partnership.
Kara Swisher: What were you trying to communicate in the call, especially since investors seemed very focused on Panda?
R R: What I also wanted to show was that third-party data sources should not be relied on. We did get affected, for sure. But I was not just being optimistic, we wanted to use that to really understand what we can do better.
K S: Given Google’s shift in its algorithm, are you shifting your distribution, such as toward social and mobile?
R R: If you look at where trends are going, that’s where we are going to be.
K S: How are you changing the continued perception that Demand is a content farm?
R R: I don’t think anyone has defined what a content farm is and I am not sure what it means either. We obviously don’t think we are a content farm and I am not sure we can counter every impact if some people think we are.
A couple years later Richard Rosenblatt left the company.
Since the Google Panda update eHow has removed millions of articles from their site. As a company they remain unprofitable a half-decade later & keep seeing YoY media ad revenue declines in the 30% to 40% range.
Over-reliance on any platform allows that platform to kill you. And, in most cases, you are unlikely to be able to restore your former status until & unless you build influence via other traffic channels:
I think in general, media companies have lost sight of building relationships with their end users that will bring them in directly, as opposed to just posting links on social networks and hoping people will click. I think publishers that do that are shooting themselves in the foot. Media companies in general are way too focused on being where our readers are, as opposed to being so necessary to our readers that they will seek us out. – Jessica Lessin, founder of TheInformation
Recovering former status requires extra investment far above and beyond what led to the penalty. And if the core business model still has the same core problems there is no solution.
“I feel pretty confident about the algorithm on Suite 101.” – Matt Cutts
Some big news publishers are trying to leverage video equivalents of a Narrative Science or Automated Insights (from Wochit and Wibbitz) to embed thousands of autogenerated autoplay videos in their articles daily.
But is that a real long-term solution to turn the corner? Even if they see a short term pop in ad revenues by using some dumbed-down AI-enhanced low cost content, all that really does is teach people that they are a source of noise while increasing the number of web users who install ad blockers.
And the whole time penalized publishers try to recover the old position of glory, the platform monopolies are boosting their AI skills in the background while they eat the playing field.
The companies which run the primary ad networks can easily get around the ad blockers, but third party publishers can’t. As the monopoly platforms broadly defund ad-based publishing, they can put users “in control” while speaking about taking the principle-based approach:
“This isn’t motivated by inventory; it’s not an opportunity for Facebook from that perspective,” Mr. Bosworth said. “We’re doing it more for the principle of the thing. We want to help lead the discussion on this.” … Mr. Bosworth said Facebook hasn’t paid any ad-blocking software company to have its ads pass through their filters and that it doesn’t intend to.
Google recently worked out a deal with Wikimedia to actually cite the source of the content shown in the search results:
it hasn’t always been the easiest to see that the material came from Wikipedia while on mobile devices. At the Wikimedia Foundation, we’ve been working to change that.
While the various platforms ride the edge on what is considered reasonable disclosure, regulatory bodies crack down on individuals participating on those platforms unless they are far more transparent than the platforms are:
Users need to be clear when they’re getting paid to promote something, and hashtags like #ad, #sp, #sponsored –common forms of identification– are not always enough.
The whole “eating the playing field” is a trend which is vastly under-reported, largely because almost everyone engaged in the ecosystem needs to sell they have some growth strategy.
The reality is as the platform gets eaten it only gets harder to build a sustainable business. The mobile search interface is literally nothing but ads in most key categories. More ads. Larger ads. Nothing but ads.
And a bit of scrape after the ads to ensure the second or third screen still shows zero organic results.
And more scraping, across more categories.
What’s more, even large scaled companies in big money fields are struggling to monetize mobile users. On the most recent quarterly conference call TripAdvisor executives stated they monetize mobile users at about 30% the rate they monetize desktop or tablet users.
What happens when the big brand advertisers stop believing in the narrative of the value of precise user tracking?
P&G two years ago tried targeting ads for its Febreze air freshener at pet owners and households with large families. The brand found that sales stagnated during the effort, but rose when the campaign on Facebook and elsewhere was expanded last March to include anyone over 18.
P&G’s push to find broader reach with its advertising is also evident in the company’s recent increases in television spending. Toward the end of last year P&G began moving more money back into television, according to people familiar with the matter.
For mobile to work well you need to be a destination & a habit. But there is tiny screen space and navigational searches are also re-routed through Google hosted content (which will, of course, get monetized).
In fact, what would happen to an advertiser if they partnered with other advertisers to prevent brand bidding? Why that advertiser would get sued by the FTC for limiting user choice:
The bidding agreements harm consumers, according to the complaint, by restraining competition for, and distorting the prices of, advertising in relevant online auctions, by reducing the number of relevant, useful, truthful and non-misleading advertisements, by restraining competition among online sellers of contact lenses, and in some cases, by resulting in consumers paying higher retail prices for contact lenses.
If the above restraint of competition & market distortion is worth suing over, how exactly can Google make the mobile interface AMP exclusive without earning a similar lawsuit?
AMP content presented in the both sections will be “de-duplicated” in order to avoid redundancies, Google says. The move is significant in that AMP results will now take up an entire phone screen, based on the example Google shows in its pitch deck.
Are many publishers in a rush to support Google AMP after the bait-n-switch on Facebook Instant Articles?
- Published in Uncategorized
When markets are new they are unproven, thus they often have limited investment targeting them.
That in turn means it can be easy to win in new markets just by virtue of existing.
It wouldn’t be hard to rank well creating a blog today about the evolution of the 3D printing industry, or a how to site focused on Arduino or Raspberry Pi devices.
Couple a bit of passion with significant effort & limited competition and winning is quite easy.
Likewise in a small niche geographic market one can easily win with a generic, because the location acts as a market filter which limits competition.
But as markets age and become more proven, capital rushes in, which pushes out most of the generic unbranded players.
Back in 2011 I wrote about how Google had effectively killed the concept of category killer domains through the combination of ad displacement, vertical search & the algorithmic ranking shift moving away from relevancy toward awareness. 2 months before I wrote that post Walgreen Co. acquired Drugstore.com for about $429 million. At the time Drugstore.com was one of the top 10 biggest ecommerce pure plays.
Thursday Walgreens Boots announced it would shut down Drugstore.com & Beauty.com:
The company is still trying to fine tune its e-commerce strategy but clearly wants to focus more of its resources on one main site. “They want to make sure they can invest more of the equity in Walgreens.com,” said Brian Owens, a director at the consultancy Kantar Retail. “Drugstore.com and Beauty.com are distractions.”
Big brands can sometimes get coverage of “meh” content by virtue of being associated with a big brand, but when they buy out pure-play secondary e-commerce sites those often fail to gain traction and get shuttered:
Other retailers have picked up pure-play e-commerce sites, only to shut them down shortly thereafter. Target Corp. last year shuttered ChefsCatalog.com and Cooking.com, less than three years after buying them.
The lack of publishing savvy among most large retailers mean there will be a water cycle of opportunity which keeps re-appearing, however as the web gets more saturated many of these opportunities are going to become increasingly niche options riding new market trends.
If you invest in zero-sum markets there needs to be some point of differentiation to drive switching. There might be opportunity for a cooking.com or a drugstore.com targeting emerging and frontier markets where brands are under-represented online (much like launching Drugstore.com in the US back in 1999), but it is unlikely pure-play ecommerce sites will be able to win in established markets if they use generically descriptive domains which make building brand awareness and perceived differentiation next to impossible.
Target not only shut down cooking.com, but they didn’t even bother redirecting the domain name to an associated part of their website.
It is now listed for sale.
Many short & generic domain names are guaranteed to remain in a purgatory status.
- The price point is typically far too high for a passionate hobbyist to buy them & attempt to turn them into something differentiated.
- The names are too generic for a bigger company to do much with them as a secondary option
- the search relevancy & social discovery algorithms are moving away from generic toward brand
- retailers have to save their best ideas for their main branded site
- the rise of cross-device tracking + ad retargeting further incentivize them to focus exclusively on a single bigger site
- Published in Uncategorized
At the abstract level, if many people believe in something then it will grow.
The opposite is also true.
And in a limitless, virtual world, you can not see what is not there.
The Yahoo Directory
Before I got into search, the Yahoo! Directory was so important to the field of search there were entire sessions at SES conferences on how to get listed & people would even recommend using #1AAA-widgets.com styled domains to alphaspam listings to the top of the category.
The alphaspam technique was a carry over from yellow page directories – many of which have went through bankruptcy as attention & advertising shifted to the web.
Go to visit the Yahoo! Directory today and you get either a server error, a security certificate warning, or a redirect to aabacosmallbusiness.com.
Before the Yahoo! Directory disappeared their quality standards were vastly diminished. As a webmaster who likes to test things, I tried submitting sites of various size and quality to different places. Some sites which would get rejected by some $10 directories were approved in the Yahoo! Directory.
The Yahoo! Directory also had a somewhat weird setting where if you canceled a directory listing in the middle of the term they would often keep it listed for many years to come – for free. After many SEOs became fearful of links the directory saw vastly reduced rates of submissions & many existing listings canceled their subscriptions, thus leaving it as a service without much of a business model.
At one point Google’s webmaster guidelines recommended submitting to DMOZ and the Yahoo! Directory, but that recommendation led to many lesser directories sprouting up & every few years Google would play a whack-a-mole game and strip PageRank or stop indexing many of them.
Many have presumed DMOZ was on its last legs many times over the past decade. But on their 18th birthday they did a spiffy new redesign.
Different sections of the site use different color coding and the design looks rather fresh and inviting.
However improved the design is, it is unlikely to reverse this ranking trend.
Why did those rankings decline though? Was it because the sites suck? Or was it because the criteria to rank changed? If the sites were good for many years it is hard to believe the quality of the sites all declined drastically in parallel.
What happened is as engagement metrics started getting folded in, sites that only point you to other sites become an unneeded step in the conversion funnel, in much the same way that Google scrubbed affiliates from the AdWords ecosystem as unneeded duplication.
What is wrong with the user experience of a general web directory? There isn’t any single factor, but a combination of them…
- the breadth of general directories means their depth must necessarily be limited.
- general directory category pages ranking in search results is like search results in search results. it isn’t great from the user’s perspective.
- if a user already knows a category well they would likely prefer to visit a destination site rather than a category page.
- if a user doesn’t already know a category, then they would prefer to use an information source which prioritizes listing the best results first. the layout for most general web directories is a list of results which are typically in alphabetical order rather than displaying the best result first
- in order to sound authoritative many directories prefer to use a neutral tone
If a directory mostly links to lower quality sites Google can choose to either not index it or not trust links from it. And even if a directory generally links to trustworthy sites, Google doesn’t need to rank it to extract most the value from it.
The trend of lower traffic to the top tier general directory sites has happened across the board.
Many years ago Google’s remote rater guidelines cited Joeant as a trustworthy directory.
Their traffic chart looks like this.
And the same sort of trend is true for BOTW, Business.com, GoGuides.org, etc.
There is basically nothing a general web directory can do to rank well in Google on a sustainable basis, at least not in the English language.
Even if you list every school in the city of Winnipeg that page can’t rank if it isn’t indexed & even if it is indexed it won’t rank well if your site has a Panda-related ranking issue. There are a couple other issues with such a comprehensive page:
- each additional listing is more editorial content cost in terms of building the page AND maintaining the page
- the bigger the page gets the more a user needs something other than alphabetical order as a sort option
- the more listings there are in a tight category the more the likelihood there will be excessive keyword repetition on the page which could get the page flagged for algorithmic demotion, even if the publisher has no intent to spam. Simply listing things by their name will mean repeating a word like “school” over 100 times on the above linked Winnipeg schools page. If you don’t consciously attempt to lower the count a page like that could have the term repeated over 300 times.
Knock On Effects
In addition to those web directories getting fewer paid submissions, most are likely seeing a rise in link removal requests. Google’s “fear first” approach to relevancy has even led them to listing DMOZ as an unnatural link source in warning emails to webmasters.
What’s more, many people who use automated link clean up tools take the declining traffic charts & low rankings of the sites as proof that the links lack value or quality.
That means anyone who gets hit by a penalty & ends up in warning messages not only ends up with less traffic while penalized, but they also get extra busy work to do while trying to fix whatever the core problem is.
And in many cases fixing the core problem is simply unfeasible without a business model change.
When general web directories are defunded it not only causes many of them to go away, but it also means other related sites and services disappear.
- Editors of those web directories who were paid to list quality sites for free.
- Web directory review sites.
- SEOs, internet marketers & other businesses which listed in those directories
Now perhaps general web directories no longer really add much value to the web & they are largely unneeded.
But there are other things which are disappearing in parallel which were certainly differentiated & valuable, though perhaps not profitable enough to maintain the “relevancy” footprint to compete in a brand-first search ecosystem.
Depth vs Breadth
Unless you are the default search engine (Google) or the default social network everyone is on (Facebook), you can’t be all things to all people.
If you want to be differentiated in a way that turns you into a destination you can’t compete on a similar feature set because it is unlikely you will be able to pay as much for traffic-driven partnerships as the biggest players can.
Can niche directories or vertical directories still rank well? Sure, why not.
Sites like Yelp & TripAdvisor have succeeded in part by adding interactive elements which turned them into sought after destinations.
Part of becoming a destination is intentionally going out of their way to *NOT* be neutral platforms. Consider how many times Yelp has been sued by businesses which claimed the sales team did or was going to manipulate the displayed reviews if the business did not buy ads. Users tend to trust those platforms precisely because other users may leave negative reviews & that (usually) offers something better than a neutral and objective editorial tone.
And that user demand for those reviews, of course, is why Google stole reviews from those sorts of sites to try to prop up the Google local places pages.
It was a point of differentiation which was strong enough that people wanted it over Google. So Google tried to neutralize the advantage.
The above section is about general directories, but the same concept applies to almost any type of website.
A decade ago feed readers were commonplace, bloggers often cross-linked & bloggers largely drove the conversation which bubbled up through mainstream media.
Google Reader killed off RSS feed readers by creating a fast, free & ad-free competitor. Then Google abruptly shut down Google Reader.
Many of the people who are quitting are not the dumb, the lazy, and the undifferentiated. Rather many are the wise trend-aware players who are highly differentiated yet find it impossible to make the numbers work:
The conversation started when revenues were down, and I had to carry payroll for a month or two out of my personal account, which I had not had to do since shortly after we started this whole project. We tweaked some things (added an ad or two which we had stripped back for the redesign, reminded people about ad-blockers and their impact on our ability to turn a profit, etc.) and revenue went back up a bit, but for a hot minute, you’ll remember I was like: “Theoretically, if this industry went further into the ground which it most assuredly will, would we want to keep running the site as a vanity project? Probably not! We would just stop doing it.”
In the current market Google can conduct a public relations campaign on a topic like payday loans, have their PR go viral & then if you mention “oh yeah, so Google is funding the creation of doorway pages to promote payday loans” it goes absolutely nowhere, even if you do it DURING THE NEWS CYCLE.
So much of what exists is fake that anything new is evaluated from the perception of suspicion.
While the real (and important) news stories go nowhere & the PR distortions spread virally, the individual blogger ends up feeling a bit soulless if they try to make ends meet:
“The American Mama reached tens of thousands of readers monthly, and under that name I worked with hundreds of big name brands on sponsored campaigns. I am a member of virtually every ‘blog network’ and agency that “connects brands with bloggers”. … What’s the point of having your own space to write if you’re being paid to sound like you work for a corporation? … PR Friendly says “For the right price, I will be anyone you want me to be.” … I’m not saying blogging is dying, but this specific little monster branch of it, sponsored content disguised as horribly written “day in the life” stories about your kids and pets? It can’t possibly last. Do you really want to be stuck on the inside when it crumbles?”
If you can’t get your own site to grow enough to matter then maybe it makes sense to contribute to someone else’s to get your name out there.
I recently received this unsolicited email:
“Hello! This is Theodore, a writer and chief editor at SomeSiteName.Com I noticed that you are accepting paid reviews online and you will be glad to know that now you can also publish your Sponsored content to SomeSite via me. SomeSite.Com is a leading website which deals in Technology, Social Media, Internet Stuff and Marketing. It was also tagged as Top 10 _____ websites of 2016 by [a popular magazine]. Website Stats- Alexa Rank: [below 700] Google PageRank: 6/10 Monthly Pageviews: 5+ Million Domain Authority: 85+ Price : $500 via PayPal (Once off Payment) Let me know if you are interested and want to feature your website product like nothing! This will not only increase your traffic but increase in overall SEO Score as well. Thanks”
That person was not actually a member of that site’s team, but they had found a way to get their content published on it.
In part because that sort of stuff exists, Google tries to minimize the ability for reputation to flow across sites.
The large platforms are so smug, so arrogant, they actually state the following sort of crap in interviews:
“There’s a space in the world for art, but that’s different from trying to build products at scale. The one thing that does make me a little nervous is a lot of my designer friends are still focused building websites and I’m not sure that’s a growth business anymore. If you look at people who are doing interesting work, they tend to be building inside these platforms like Facebook and finding ways to do interesting work in there. For instance, journalists. Instant Articles is a really great way for stories to be told.”
And if you starve during the 7 lean years in between when your business model is once again well aligned with Facebook you can’t go back in time to give yourself a meal to un-starve.
Ehow.com has removed *MILLIONS* of pages of content since getting hit by Panda. And yet their ranking chart looks like this
What is crazy is the above chart actually understates the actual declines, because the shift of search to mobile & increasing prevalence of ads in the search results means estimates of organic search traffic may be overstated significantly compared to a few years prior.
A half-decade ago a bootstrapped eHow competitor named ArticlesBase got some buzz in TechCrunch because they were making about $500,000 a month on about 20 million monthly unique visitors. That business was recently listed on Flippa. They are getting about a half-million unique monthly visitors (off 95%) and about $2,000 a month in revenues (off about 99.6%).
The negative karma with that site (in terms of ability to rank) is so bad that the site owner suggested on Flippa to publish any new content from new authors onto different websites: “its not going to get to 0 as most of the traffic is not google today, but we would suggest to push out the fresh daily incoming content to new sites – thats where the growth is.”
Now a person could say “eHow deserves to die” and maybe they are right. BUT one could easily counter that point by noting…
- the public who owns the shares owns the ongoing losses & many top insiders cashed out long ago
- Google was getting a VIG on eHow on their ride up & is still collecting one on the way down (along with funding other current parallel projects from the very same people with the very same Google ad network)
- Demand Media’s partner program where they syndicate eHow-like content to newspapers like USA Today keeps growing at 15% to 20% a year (similar process, author, content, business model, etc. … only a different URL hosting the content)
- look at this and you’ll see how many publishing networks are still building the same sort of content but are cross-marketing across networks of sites. What’s more some of the same names are at the new plays. For example, Demand Media’s founder was the chairman of an SEO firm bought by Hearst publishing & his wife is on the about us page of Evolve Media’s ModernMom.com
The wrappers around the content & masthead logos change, but by and large the people and strategies don’t change anywhere near as quickly.
Web Portals & News Sites
As the mainstream media gets more desperate, they are more willing to partner with the likes of Demand Media to get any revenue they can.
You see the reality of this desperation in the stock charts for newspaper companies.
Or how about this chart for Yahoo.com.
It doesn’t look particularly bad, especially if you consider that Yahoo has shut down many of their vertical sites.
Underlying flat search traffic charts misses declining publisher CPMs and the click traffic mix shift away from organic toward paid search channels as search traffic shifts to mobile devices & Google relentlessly increases the size of the search ads. Yahoo may still rank #3 for keyword x, but if that #3 ranking is below the fold on both mobile and desktop devices they might need to rank #1 to get as much traffic as #3 got a couple years ago.
Yahoo! was once the leading search portal & now they are worth about 1/5th of LinkedIn (after backing out their equity stakes in Alibaba and Yahoo! Japan).
The chart is roughly flat, but the company is up for a fire sale because organic search result displacement & the value of traffic has declined quicker than Yahoo! can fire employees & none of their Hail Mary passes worked.
Ms. Mayer compared the [Polyvore] deal to Google’s acquisition of YouTube in 2006, arguing that “you can never overpay” for a company with the potential to land a huge new base of users.
“Her core mistake was this belief that she could reinvent Yahoo,” says a former senior executive who left the company last year. “There was an element of her being a true believer when everyone else had stopped.”
Chewing Up the Value Chain
Smaller devices that are harder to use means the gateways have to try to add more features to maintain relevance.
As they add features, publishers get displaced:
The Web will only expand into more aspects of our lives. It will continue to change every industry, every company, and every life on the planet. The Web we build today will be the foundation for generations to come. It’s crucial we get this right. Do we want the experiences of the next billion Web users to be defined by open values of transparency and choice, or the siloed and opaque convenience of the walled garden giants dominating today?
And if converting on mobile is hard or inconvenient, many people will shift to the defaults they know & trust, thus choosing to buy on Amazon rather than a smaller ecommerce website. One of my friends who was in ecommerce for many years stated this ultimately ended up becoming the problem with his business. People would email him back and forth about the product, related questions, and basically go all the way through the sales process with getting him to answer every concern & recommend each additional related product needed, then at the end they would ask him to price match Amazon & if he couldn’t they would then buy from Amazon. If he had more scale he might have been able to get a better price from suppliers and compete with Amazon on price, but his largest competitor who took out warehouse space also filed for bankruptcy because they were unable to make the interest payments on their loans.
We live in a society which over-values ease-of-use & scale while under-valuing expertise.
Look at how much consolidation there has been in the travel market since Google Flights launched & Google went pay-to-play with hotel search.
Expedia owns Travelocity & Orbitz. Priceline owns Kayak. Yahoo! Travel simply disappeared. TripAdvisor is strong, but even they were once a part of Expedia.
How different are the remaining OTAs? One could easily argue they are less differentiated than this article about the history of the travel industry makes Skift against other travel-related news sites.
How many markets are strong enough to support the creation of that sort of featured editorial content?
And most companies which can create that sort of in-depth content leverage the higher margins on shallower & cheaper content to pay for that highly differentiated featured content creation.
But if the knowledge graph and new search features are simply displacing the result set the number of people who will be able to afford creating that in-depth featured content is only further diminished.
Over 5 years ago Bing’s Stefan Weitz mentioned they wanted to move search from a web of nouns to a web of verbs & to “look at the web as a digital representation of the physical world.” Some platforms are more inclusive than Google is & decide to partner rather than displace, but Bing’s partnership with Yelp or TripAdvisor doesn’t help you if you are a direct competitor of Yelp or TripAdvisor, or if your business was heavily reliant on one of these other channels & you fall out of favor with them.
Chewing Up Real Estate
There are so many enhanced result features in the search results it is hard to even attempt to make an exhaustive list.
As search portals rush to add features they also rush to grab real estate & outright displace the concept of “10 blue links.”
There has perhaps been nothing which captured the sentiment better than
The following is paraphrased, but captures the intent to displace the value chain & the roll of publishers.
“the journeys of users. their desire to be taken and sort of led and encouraged to proceed, especially on mobile devices (but I wouldn’t say only on mobile devices).
there are a lot of users who are happy to be provided with encouragement and leads to more and more interesting information and related, grouped in groups, leading lets say from food to restaurants, from restaurants to particular types of restaurants, from particular types of restaurants to locations of those types of restaurants, ordering, reservations.
I’m kind of hungry, and in a few minutes you’ve either ordered food or booked a table. Or I’m kind of bored, and in a few minutes you’ve found a book to read or a film to watch, or some other discovery you are interested in.” – Andrey Lipattsev
What role do publishers have in the above process? Unpaid data sources used to train algorithms at Facebook & Google?
Individually each of these assistive search feature roll outs may sound compelling, but ultimately they defund publishing.
Not a “Google Only” Problem
People may think I am unnecessarily harsh toward Google in my views, but this sort of shift is not a Google-only thing. It is something all the large online platforms are doing. I simply give Google more coverage because they have a history of setting standards & moving the market, whereas a player like Yahoo! is acting out of desperation to simply try to stay alive. The market capitalization of the companies reflect this.
Google & Facebook control the ecosystem. Everyone else is just following along.
“digital is eating legacy media, mobile is eating digital, and two companies, Facebook and Google, are eating mobile. … Since 2011, desktop advertising has fallen by about 10 percent, according to Pew. Meanwhile mobile advertising has grown by a factor of 30 … Facebook and Google, control half of net mobile ad revenue.” – Derek Thompson
The same sort of behavior is happening in China, where Google & Facebook are prohibited from competing.
As publishers get displaced and defunded online platforms can literally buy the media: “There’s very little downside. Even if we lose money it won’t be material,” Alibaba’s Mr. Tsai said. “But the upside [in buying SCMP] is quite interesting.”
The above quote was on Alibaba buying the newspaper of record in Hong Kong.
As bad as entire industries becoming token purchases may sound, that is the optimistic view. 😀
Facebook’s Instant Articles and Google’s AMP those make a token purchase unnecessary: “I don’t think it’s any secret that you’re going to see a bloodbath in the next 12 months,” Vice Media’s Shane Smith said, referring to digital media and broadcast TV. “Facebook has bought two-thirds of the media companies out there without spending a dime.”
Those services can dictate what gets exposure, how it is monetized, and then adjust the exposure and revenue sharing over time to keep partners desperate & keep them hooked.
“If Thiel and Nick Denton were just a couple of rich guys fighting over a 1st Amendment edge case, it wouldn’t be very interesting. But Silicon Valley has unprecedented, monopolistic power over the future of journalism. So much power that its moral philosophy matters.” – Nate Silver
Give them just enough (false) hope to stay partnered.
All the while track user data more granularly & run AI against it to disintermediate & devalue partners.
TV networks are aware of the risks of disintermediation and view Netflix with more suspicion than informed SEOs view Google:
for all the original shows Netflix has underwritten, it remains dependent on the very networks that fear its potential to destroy their longtime business model in the way that internet competitors undermined the newspaper and music industries. Now that so many entertainment companies see it as an existential threat, the question is whether Netflix can continue to thrive in the new TV universe that it has brought into being.
“ ‘Breaking Bad’ was 10 times more popular once it started streaming on Netflix.” – Michael Nathanson
the networks couldn’t walk away from the company either. Many of them needed licensing fees from Netflix to make up for the revenue they were losing as traditional viewership shrank.
And just like Netflix, Facebook will move into original content production.
Wikipedia is certainly imperfect, but it is also a large part of why other directories have went away. It is basically a directory tied to an encyclopedia which is free and easy to syndicate.
Every large search & discovery platform has an incentive for Wikipedia to be as expansive as possible.
The bigger Wikipedia gets, the more potential answers and features can be sourced from it. More knowledge graph, more instant answers, more organic result displacement, more time on site, more ad clicks.
Even if a knowledge graph listing is wrong, the harm done by it doesn’t harm the search service syndicating the content unless people create a big deal of the error. But if that happens then people will give feedback on how to fix the error & that is a PR lead into the narrative of how quickly search is improving and evolving.
“Wikipedia used to instruct its authors to check if content could be dis-intermediated by a simple rewrite, as part of the criteria for whether an article should be added to wikipedia. There are many rascals on the Internets; none deserving of respect.” – John Andrews
Sergy Brin donates to fund the expansion of Wikipedia. Wikipedia rewrites more webmaster content. Google has more knowledge graph grist and rich answers to further displace publishers.
I recently saw the new gray desktop search results Google is tested. When those appear the knowledge graph appears inline with the regular search results & even on my huge monitor the organic result set is below the fold.
The problem with that is if your brand name is the same brand name that is in the knowledge graph & you are not the dominant interpretation then you are below the fold on all devices for your core brand UNLESS you pay Google for every single click.
How much should a brand like The Book of Life pay Google for being a roadblock? What sort of tax is appropriate & reasonable? How high will you bid in a casino where the house readjusts the shuffle & deal order in the middle of the hand?
I recently did a search on Bing & inside their organic search results they linked to a Mahalo-like page called Bing Knows. I guess this is a feature in China, but it could certainly spread to other markets.
If they partnered with an eBay or Amazon.com and put a “buy now” button in the search results they’d have just about completely closed the loop there.
The reason I started this article with directories is their role is to link to sites. They are categorized collections of links which have been heavily commodified & devalued to the point they are rendered unnecessary and viewed adversely by much of the SEO market (even the ones with decent editorial standards).
Just like links got devalued, so did domain names.
And, as mentioned above in the parts about blogging, content farms, web portals & news sites … the same trend is happening to almost every type of content.
Big platform players like Google and Facebook broaden cross-device user tracking to create new relevancy signals and extract most the value created by publisher. The more information the platform owns the more of a starving artist the partners become.
As partners become more desperate, they overvalue growth (just like Yahoo! with Polyvore):
“It’s the golden age right now,” [Thrillist CEO Ben Lerer] said. “If you’re a digital publisher, you have every big TV company calling you. When I look at media brands, if a media brand disappeared tomorrow, would I notice?” he said. “And there are a bunch of brands that have scale, and maybe a lot of money raised, and maybe this and that, but, actually, I might not know for a year. There’s so many brands like that. Like, what does it really stand for? Why does it exist?”
Disruption is not a strategy, but the whole point of accelerating it & pushing it (without an adequate plan for “what’s next”) is to re-establish feudal lords.
The web is a virtual land where the commodity which matters most is attention. If you go back in time, lords maintained wealth & control through extracting rents.
A few years ago a quote like the following one may have sounded bizarre or out of place
These are the people who guard the company’s status as what ranking team head Amit Singhal often sees characterised as “the biggest kingmaker on this Earth.”
But if you view it through the some historical context it isn’t hard to understand
“The nobles still had the power to write the law, and in a series of moves that took place in different countries at different times, they taxed the bazaar, broke up the guilds, outlawed local currencies, and bestowed monopoly charters on their favorite merchants. … It was never really about efficiency anyway; industrialization was about restoring the power of those at the top by minimizing the value and price of human laborers.” – Douglas Rushkoff
Google funding LendUp & ranking their doorway pages while hitting the rest of the industry is Google bestowing “monopoly charters on their favorite merchants.”
The issue is not that the value of anything drops to zero, but rather a combine set of factors shrinks down the size of the market which can be profitably served. Each of these factors eat at margins…
- lower CPMs
- the rise of ad blockers (funded largely by some big ad networks paying to allow their own ads through while blocking competing ad networks)
- rise of programmatic ads (which shift advertiser budget away from publisher to various forms of management)
- larger ad sizes: “Based on early testing, some advertisers have reported increases in clickthrough rates of up to 20% compared to current text ads. ”
- increase of vertical search results in Google & more ads + self-hosted content in Facebook’s feed
- shift of search audience to mobile devices which have no screen real estate for organic search results and lower cost per click (there’s a reason Google AdSense is publishing tips on making more from mobile)
- increased algorithmic barrier to entry and longer delay times to rank
The least sexy consultant pitch in the world: “Sure I can probably rank your website, but it will take a year or two, cost you at least $80,000 per year, and you will still be below the fold even if we get to #1 because the paid search ads fill up the first screen of results.”
That isn’t going to be an appealing marketing message for a new small business with a limited budget.
“The open web is pretty broken. … Railroad, electricity, cable, telephone—all followed this similar pattern toward closedness and monopoly, and government regulated or not, it tends to happen because of the power of network effects and the economies of scale” – Ev Williams.
The above article profiling Ev Williams also states: “An April report from the web-analytics company Parse.ly found that Google and Facebook, just two companies, send more than 80 percent of all traffic to news sites.”
The same general trend is happening to almost every form of content – video, news, social, etc..
- a big platform over-promotes a vertical to speed up buy-in (perhaps even offering above market rates or other forms of compensation to get the flywheel started)
- other sources join the market without that compensation & then the compensation stream gets yanked
- displacement of the source by a watered down copy (eHow or Wikipedia styled rewrite), or some zero-cost licensing arrangement (Facebook Instant Articles, Google AMP, syndicating Wikipedia rewrites)
- strategic defunding of the content source
- promise of future gains causing desperate publishers to lean harder into Google or Facebook even as they squeeze more water out of the rock.
Hey, sure your traffic is declining & your revenue is declining faster. You are getting squeezed out, but if you trust the primary players responsible for the shift & rely on Instant Articles or Google’s AMP this time will be different.
…or maybe not…
Facts & Opinions
When I saw some Google shills syndicating Google’s “you can’t copyright facts” pitch without question I cringed, because I knew where that was immediately headed.
A year later the trend was obvious.
The Internet commoditized the distribution of facts. The “news” media responded by pivoting wholesale into opinions and entertainment.— Naval Ravikant (@naval) May 26, 2016
So now we get story pitches where the author tries to collect a few quote sources to match the narrative already in their head. Surely this has gone on for a long time, but it has rarely been so transparently obvious and cringeworthy as it is today.
And if you stray too far from facts into opinions & are successful, don’t be surprised if you end up on the receiving end of proxy lawsuits:
Can we talk about how strange it is for a group of Silicon Valley startup mentors to embrace secret proxy litigation as a business tactic? To suddenly get sanctimonious about what is published on the internet and called News? To shame another internet company for not following ‘the norms’ of a legacy industry? The hypocrisy is mind bending.
The desperation is so bad news sites don’t even attempt to hide it. And part of what is driving that is bot-driven content further eroding margins on legitimate publishing. Google not only ranks those advertorials, but they also promote some of the auto-generated articles which read like:
As many as 1 analysts, the annual sales target for company name, Inc. (NYSE:ticker) stands at $45.13 and the median is $45.13 for the period closed 3.
The bearish target on sales is $45.13 and the bullish estimate is $45.13, yielding a standard deviation of 1.276%.
Not more than 1 investment entities have updated sales projections on upside over the last week while 1 have downgraded their previously provided sales targets. The estimates highlight a net change of 0% over the last 1 weeks period.
Sales estimated amount is a foremost parameter in judging a firm’s performance. Nearly 1 analysts have revised sales number on the upside in last one month and 1 have lowered their targets. It demonstrates a net cumulative change of 0% in targets against sales forecasts which were given a month ago.
In latest quarterly period, 1 have revised targeted sales on upside and 1 have decreased their projections. It demonstrates change of 4.898%.
I changed a few words in each sentence of that quote to make it harder to find the source as I wasn’t trying to out them specifically. But the auto-generated content was ranked by Google & monetized via inline Google AdSense ads promoting the best marijuana stocks to invest in and warning of a pending 80% stock market crash coming soon this year.
Hey at least it isn’t a TOTALLY fake story!
Publishers get the message loud and clear. Tronc wants to ramp up on AI driven video content at scale:
“There’s all these really new, fun features we’re going to be able to do with artificial intelligence and content to make videos faster,” Ferro told interviewer Andrew Ross Sorkin. “Right now, we’re doing a couple hundred videos a day; we think we should be doing 2,000 videos a day.”
All is well, news & information are just externalities to a search
engine ad network.
No big deal.
“With newspapers dying, I worry about the future of the republic. We don’t know yet what’s going to replace them, but we do already know it’s going to be bad.” – Charlie Munger
Build a Brand
Build a brand, that way you are protected from the rapacious tech platforms.
Or so the thinking goes.
But that leads back to the above image where The Book of Life is below the fold on their own branded search query because there is another interpretation Google feels is more dominant.
The big problem with “brand as solution” is you not only have to pay to build a brand, but then you have to pay to protect it.
And the number of search “innovations” to try to siphon off some late funnel branded traffic and move it back up the funnel to competitors (to force the brand to pay again for their own brand to try to displace the “innovations”) will only continue growing.
And at any point in time if Disney makes a movie using your brand name as the name of the movie, you are irrelevant and need of a rebrand overnight, unless you commit to paying Google for your brand forever.
Having an offline location can be a point of strength and a point of differentiation. But it can also be a reason for Google to re-route user traffic through more Google owned & controlled pages.
Further, most large US offline retailers are doing horrible.
Almost all the offline growth is in stores selling dirt cheap unbranded imported stuff like Dollar General or Family Dollar & stores like Ross and TJ Maxx which sell branded item remainders at discount prices. And as Amazon gets more efficient by the day, other competitors with high cost structures & less efficient operations grow relatively less efficient over time.
The Wall Street Journal recently published an article about a rift between Wal-Mart & Procter & Gamble: “They sell crappy private label, so you buy Swiffer with a crappy refill,” said one of the people familiar with the product changes. “And then you don’t buy again.”
In trying to drive sales growth, P&G is resorting to some Yahoo!-like desperate measures, included meetings where “Some workers donned gladiator-like armor for the occasion.”
Riding on other platforms or partners carries the same sorts of risks as trusting Google or Facebook too much.
Even owning a strong brand name and offline distribution does not guarantee success. Sears already spun out their real estate & they are looking to sell the Kenmore & Craftsman brands.
The big difference between the web and offline platforms is the marginal cost of information is zero, so they can quickly & cheaply spread to adjacent markets in ways that physically constrained offline players can not & some of the big web platforms have far more data on people than governments do. It is worth noting one of the things that came out of the Snowden leaks is spooks were leveraging Google’s DoubleClick cookies for tracking users.
As desperate stores/platforms see slowing growth they squeeze for margins and seek to accelerate growth any way possible. Chasing growth ultimately leads to the promise of what differentiates them disappearing. I recently bought some “hand crafted” soaps on Etsy, which shipped from Shenzen.
I am not sure how that impacts other artisinal soap sellers, but it makes me less likely to buy that sort of product from Etsy again.
And for as much as I like shopping on Amazon, I was uninspired when a seller recently sent me this.
Amazon might usually be great for buyers & great for affiliates, but hearing how they are quickly expanding their private label offerings wouldn’t be welcome news for a merchant who is overly-reliant on them for sales in any of those categories.
The above sort of activity is what is going on in the real world even among brands which are not under attack.
The domestic economic landscape is getting quite ugly:
America’s economy today is in some respects more concentrated than it was during the Gilded Age, whose excesses prompted the Progressive Era reforms the FTC exemplifies. In sector after sector, from semiconductors and cable providers to eyeglass manufacturers and hotels, a handful of companies dominate. These giants use their market power to hike prices for consumers and suppress wages for workers, worsening inequality. Consolidation also appears to be driving a dramatic decline in entrepreneurship, closing off opportunity and suppressing growth. Concentration of economic power, in turn, tends to concentrate political power, which incumbents use to sway policies in their favor, further entrenching their dominance.
And the local abusive tech monopolies are now firmly promoting the TPP: “make it more difficult for TPP countries to block Internet sites” = countries should have less influence over the web than individual Facebook or Google engineers do.
In a land of algorithmic false positives that cause personal meltdowns and organizational breakdowns there is nothing wrong at all with that!
I kept waiting. For a year and a half, I waited. The revenues kept trickling down. It was this long terrible process, losing half overnight but then also roughly 3% a month for a year and a half after. It got to the point where we couldn’t pay our bills. That’s when I reached out again to Matt Cutts, “Things never got better.” He was like, “What, really? I’m sorry.” He looked into it and was like, “Oh yeah, it never reversed. It should have. You were accidentally put in the bad pile.”
Luckily the world can depend on China to drive growth and it will save us.
Or maybe there is a small problem with that line of thinking…
Beijing’s intellectual property regulator has ordered Apple Inc. to stop sales of the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus in the city, ruling that the design is too similar to a Chinese phone, in another setback for the company in a key overseas market.
Can any experts chime in on this?
First, there is Wal-Mart selling off their Chinese e-commerce operation to the #2 Chinese ecommerce company & then there’s this from the top Chinese ecommerce company:
“The problem is the fake products today are of better quality and better price than the real names. They are exactly the same factories, exactly the same raw materials but they do not use the names.” – Alibaba’s Jack Ma
- Published in Uncategorized
- Last August I wrote a blog post about how atten...
- There may be a couple exceptions which prove th...
- When Compete.com launched with credits-based pr...
- Sections Just Make Great Content... Search Engi...
- On Friday Google's Gary Illyes announced Pengu...