Tag

Google

Browsing

By

The ugly truth is that it’s hard to reverse momentum once a website starts going in the wrong direction.

Often, businesses want to stop and start SEO.

Some feel that taking a break won’t cause any issues.

But when a client suggests taking a break, you can explain the details of what will happen.

If you stop posting content correctly

When you stop publishing content, the following things happen:

  1. You stop targeting new terms consistently. This results in fewer new keyword rankings and new traffic.
  2. You stop creating new pages that can be linked to, and the number of links you earn goes down.
  3. You stop capturing new visitors to add to your remarketing audiences, email list and push notification list.
  4. You stop generating content that can be used to create hub pages, which are master pages that link to all other pages on the topic. These often rank very well.
  5. You stop generating content that gets shared on social media, and thus, generates social media shares and traffic.
  6. You stop encouraging people to return to your website for new posts. This reduces your branded searches, which are an indicator of quality to Google.

Overall, if you stop creating content, it says to Google that your website is no longer as active as it was and thus beginning the process of dying a slow death.

If you don’t watch for technical issues

Those without web experience often don’t understand that from a technical perspective, things often break for no real reason.

I’ve never seen a website that did not have at least a handful of technical SEO issues.

If you don’t monitor the technical aspects of your site, issues such as the following could arise:

  1. You block your website with robots.txt.
  2. You generate duplicate content.
  3. You accidentally push your development site into the index.

You can read more about common technical issues here.

When you don’t monitor these things and fix them consistently, they start to add up. Think of it as a garden – it takes maintenance, or it starts to become overgrown.

It is incredibly important to stay technically correct, especially with new developments such as mobile usability, page speed, AMP and more.

If you don’t, you are sure to have an error at some point that will cost you down the line. Similarly, your tech stack will become so out of date that you can no longer compete in the market.

If you stop refreshing pages

When you refresh a page correctly, traffic will generally increase to that page 10% to 30%, sometimes more.

The reason for this is because Google sees the new text and the value it provides and wants to rank it higher.

Now, there are many ways to go about doing refreshes. Some of those include:

  1. Adding FAQs to the page
  2. Adding links to other articles
  3. Updating facts
  4. Updating dates
  5. Making the text longer
  6. Adding schema
  7. Changing a page template
  8. Etc.

Lately, the most important thing to look for when refreshing a page is whether or not it matches search intent, and if the page in question is better than the #1 ranking page.

My process includes doing a search, categorizing the query based on intent, analyzing the top pages, creating a new strategy for the page we are trying to get ranked, and refreshing as a result of that.

If you stop building new pages

Building new pages are harder for some industries than others.

For example, when I worked with a few firms in the outsources accounting space, the lower funnel terms were minimal. If you compare that to a large e-commerce site like Amazon, its terms are endless.

While that is the case, I believe websites should always be targeting new terms and organizing them by segment. Those segments should be prioritized based on business goals and tracked in a dashboard.

But if you stop building new pages, you’ll lose keyword growth momentum.

I highly recommend creating these pages for SEO, but additionally, these new pages can be excellent landing pages for paid search and paid media, in general.

As a website grows, it’s a great idea to create more landing pages that target specific keywords and audiences. This will improve quality score on the page side and conversion rates all around.

If you stop this process, you’ll lose your competitive advantage. The people who win in the future of the web will be the ones converting traffic for less.

If you stop watching out for bad links

If you stop doing SEO, your backlink profile can get out of control.

Lately, spammy links are worse than ever before.

When you watch your backlinks, you will see the following happen:

  1. People scrape your website content and keep the links in by accident.
  2. You get Google alerts from sites hacked by malware.
  3. Competitors try to do negative SEO on your site.

If you don’t update your disavow file once a month, you are putting your website rankings at risk. Lately, we have been doing it weekly for clients in competitive spaces.

If you stop watching out for stolen content

Go to your top landing page on your website right now.

Copy a block of text about three sentences long.

Put that text in quotes and search for it in Google. What do you see?

I’ll bet some of you will see other websites coming up for that content. Some might have even stolen from your website.

Now, think about the impact that can have if it happens across multiple pages on your site. Honestly, it can be devastating. Many times we find others have wholly duplicated a website, stolen key pages, or taken individual sections of a page.

When this happens, you need to address it.

  1. Rewrite the content on your site.
  2. Ask the other site to take it down.
  3. File a DMCA on them if needed.
  4. Consider sending them a cease and desist.
  5. Sometimes, you can contact the hosting company and ask them to remove the site.

Regardless, if you stop watching for stolen content, it could have an extremely negative effect on your business and rankings. This is something you need to catch right away.

Bottom line: Why you should not stop doing SEO

Obviously, you’re not going to stop doing SEO. We all know it is an amazing asset to improve search ranking and help your business grow. The work you do to create and update content along with the technical issues that are easily solved if they’re on your radar, all improve your bottom line. But you also need to ensure you are compliant with privacy regulations if you wish to remain on top.

The ugly truth is that it’s hard to reverse momentum once a website starts going in the wrong direction. I am a firm believer that all things online should be scaled as the business grows, SEO included.

By

Sourced from searchengineland.com

By

There are times when our students will conduct a good Google search with carefully selected terms but still not find what they’re looking for. They could go back and search again with other terms or they might try using a different search tool. Sometimes using a different search tool and looking in those results can lead students to the new information that they need. Here are three useful search tools that students often overlook.

Google Books

Google Books is a fantastic tool for students to use to locate books and search within those books. As is demonstrated in this video even if a book isn’t available to download in its entirety, students can still search within the book to determine if the book contains enough references to make it worth their time and effort to buy or borrow a copy of the book.

Your School Library

Most school libraries have access to subscription databases that students can’t access without the assistance of your school librarian. Those databases often contain resources that students won’t find through a Google search.

Google Scholar

Google Scholar can be a good search tool for high school students. Google Scholar is a great place to find articles from academic journals. Articles from academic journals aren’t the only things that students can search for on Google Scholar. Google Scholar provides search tools for locating court decisions and tools for locating patent filings. In this video I provide an overview of how to create Google Scholar alerts and in this one I demonstrate tracing the evolution of technology with Google Scholar.

Learn more about teaching search strategies.

I have a popular webinar titled Search Strategies Students Need to Know that you can watch on-demand. The Practical Ed Tech Summer Camp always includes a section on teaching search strategies. Registration is open now.

By  

Sourced from Practical Ed Tech

By

Google is taking a friendlier approach to publishers with its discussions about possibly paying them a licensing fee for content, as The Wall Street Journal reportedlast week. The talks are said to be in the early stages, but they may help publishers create another source of revenue as they cope with declining ad sales.

The value of publisher content to Google has been hotly debated since last year. The News Media Alliance, a nonprofit that represents more than 2,000 newspapers in North America, argued that Google makes at least $4.7 billion a year from “crawling and scraping” their content. Google refuted the claim, which also was questioned by media analysts, executives and columnists.

It’s hard to imagine that publishers have much bargaining power with Google, given that it’s the most popular search engine in the world outside of China. Even if antitrust authorities manage to compel Google to undo its acquisitions of DoubleClick, YouTube and Android, the company will still dominate internet search.

It’s also important to understand the difference between Google Search and Google News, the two main avenues to publisher content from the search company.

Google Search is valuable to publishers, helping them to connect with online audiences. The key debate is whether Google helps or hurts traffic with search results. Google has said it drives 10 billion clicks to publishers’ websites and is providing an invaluable service.

Some publishers, especially in France, have argued the search results show too much copyrighted content from their websites. Instead of urging people to click through, Google gives readers just enough information to stay on its site, the argument goes.

In addition, Google News gathers headlines from publishers in one place, helping readers to find the latest headlines. Google doesn’t have advertising in Google News, which means there isn’t any revenue to share with publishers.<

However, as other companies like Apple, Facebook, News Corp and AT&T develop news aggregation services, the search giant has more competitors for user attention.

Facebook last year announced plans to share revenue with publishers, while Apple has a paid digital newsstand that also provides additional income. Google’s willingness to pay for publisher content is a welcomed development.

By

Sourced from MediaPost

The biggest ads from the biggest brands in big TV moments used to be dominated by cars, candy, and beer. Now—like everything else—it’s Big Tech.

For 32 years, USA Today’s Ad Meter has measured the popularity of Super Bowl ads, and this year’s list looked different than ever before.

Google nabbed the No. 3 spot, Amazon No. 7, and Microsoft No. 9. Even Facebook, which ranked much lower at No. 39, was airing its first-ever Super Bowl spot but still managed to beat out such TV ad stalwarts as GMC, Audi, Coke, and Pepsi.

Seemingly out of nowhere (although after years of building up to it), Big Tech has finally become the kind of major TV-advertiser class that used to be the sole domain of legacy brands—those TV ad staples in such popular categories as autos, beer, and candy. For most of their history, these companies scoffed at traditional media. Can’t measure it, can’t convert viewers into customers, not enough real-time data. Yet here are the 21st century’s most dominant brands behaving like their counterparts of the late 20th, using TV as a key tool to build image and consumer loyalty. Taking a half-step back, this development is a bit rich given that other than Microsoft, these are companies whose businesses are working, through digital advertising dominance and streaming content, essentially to destroy the modern TV industry.

The Super Bowl and most other high-profile TV opportunities like the Oscars and Grammys are now where the biggest tech companies go to forge the kind of emotional relationship with consumers that helps prevent us from becoming too critical, too nervous, and too creeped out by their actions.

It could not have been scripted better.

Big spenders

Microsoft was one of the biggest TV ad spenders in tech last year, shelling out half a billion dollars. On its Surface brand alone, the company boosted ad spending by almost 20%, to an estimated $219.1 million, according to measurement firm iSpot.

Amazon spent more than $1.25 billion overall in 2019, boosting TV ad spending for Prime, for example, by a massive 487% to hit about $210 million. Also notable for Amazon, it more than doubled TV ad spending on its home security system Ring, hitting about $79 million in 2019, compared with $32 million in 2018. Given that the company was recently accused of providing user data to Facebook and other companies without making Ring users aware that their data was being shared, adding to its other privacy scandals, it’s going to need all the brand loyalty it can muster.

Facebook is the smallest of the big tech companies, and it correspondingly spent just $300 million on TV marketing last year, with more than half of it, according to iSpot, going to burnish Facebook’s brand.

The ads, the strategies

After Google ran its Super Bowl ad on Sunday night, Twitter lit up with posts about its emotional effectiveness.

Microsoft received similar kudos for its ad profiling 49ers assistant coach Katie Sowers, which hit the perfect balance of product, brand, and a message of female empowerment that Secret and Olay, both of which have been marketing to women for as long as they’ve existed, couldn’t manage to find.

Amazon was back at its goofy celebrity best, this time teaming with Ellen DeGeneres to wonder what life was like before Alexa.

And then Facebook dropped in with an homage to eclectic Groups, with a side dish of Sly Stallone and Chris Rock.

All the game needed to have a Big Tech full house was Apple, but even Cupertino managed to launch a new spot yesterday for its Arcade video game subscription service.

Anyone wondering why the planet’s biggest and most successful tech and digital media companies are increasingly turning to good old-fashioned TV ads need look no further for a reason than what comedian and talk-show host Desus of Desus and Mero had to say:

As I wrote on Sunday, Facebook made its users the focus of its Super Bowl ad to draw as much attention as possible away from its myriad of corporate issues. Each of the companies chose the largest advertising stage and its most strategic products—Facebook Groups, Amazon’s Alexa, Microsoft Surface, Google Search—as the device with which to build a narrative and emotional connection with users.

Back in 2018, Google CMO Lorraine Twohill heralded the brand’s ads “Parisian Love” (which became Google’s first-ever Super Bowl ad) and “Dear Sophie” as the spark for what’s become the company’s strategy around humanizing its products and itself. When she joined the company in 2009, the marketing formula was more tech nerd than Mad Men and went something like this: We have to launch a new product, here’s a blog post, and here is a video of the product manager explaining its features. Please watch the video.

“In the early days, we had a Chrome digital-only campaign, which was about three things: safety, simplicity, and speed. Very rational,” said Twohill. “That did get us so far, but no one gets out of bed in the morning and says, ‘I need a new browser.’ What changed the game for us was to go out and create ‘The web is what you make of it,’ which is essentially a brand campaign about people using the web to make their lives better.”

Replace “web” with soap, cars, beer, insurance, or burgers and it becomes pretty clear that these companies we see as among the most innovative in the world still rely upon some of the most hardy advertising tropes in existence. Amazon’s humor is no different than VW in 2011’s “The Force” that charmed us all just before the company’s reputation imploded under the emissions scandal. Or how Snickers uses it to avoid us looking too closely at the sustainability and labor challenges of the chocolate industry. Facebook’s Groups spot is the direct descendant of any commercial gleefully celebrating human gathering, from McDonald’s “You Deserve A Break Today” back in the ’80s, to the longstanding idea of Miller Time.

Microsoft’s Super Bowl ad was fantastic, but let’s face it, the point was Sowers’s story and her accomplishment, not a tablet computer, and could’ve easily been a spot for paper towels. Kind of like P&G’s long-running “Thank You, Mom” Olympic campaign. And while Google’s “Loretta” expertly uses its own products to make those human connections, it hinges on tying human connection and emotion to the brand, a tactic perfected in spots like Coke’s classic “Hilltop” and Budweiser’s “Puppy Love.”

Back then, we were being charmed by companies that we knew—or had some sense—that they were connected to such serious problems as obesity, pollution, addiction, and more. Those, of course, still remain, but say what you want about beer or fast-food burgers, they don’t lead to issues of data privacy and misinformation, among others.

The emotional connections forged by these ads seek to paper over all of that, at least for 30 seconds at a time.

Oh, and add in a CEO tweet for good measure.

What’s next

These challenges—and Big Tech’s need to cultivate as much goodwill as possible—aren’t going anywhere, so expect this type of TV ad spending to continue to grow, at least until they actually do kill broadcast TV. This will be most acute during major events like the Super Bowl, Oscars, World Series, and anywhere else our fragmented media culture manages to come together in anything even remotely resembling a collective cultural experience. The more we love their ads, the more likely we’ll be to buy and use their products, and therefore less likely to address potential concerns, vote to have monopolies broken up, or otherwise question their motives.

On the bright side, though, at least Big Tech didn’t try to sell us a baby peanut.

By Karissa Bell.

We finally know how much Google is making from ads on YouTube.

Google took in more than $15 billion from YouTube ads in 2019, the company revealed. That number, nearly 10 percent of Alphabet’s total revenue, doesn’t include other sources of revenue from the video platform, including subscriptions.

Google disclosed the numbers, along with revenue for its growing cloud business, for the first time ahead of Alphabet’s fourth-quarter earnings call.

“I’m really pleased with our continued progress in Search and in building two of our newer growth areas — YouTube, already at $15 billion in annual ad revenue, and Cloud, which is now on a $10 billion revenue run rate,” CEO Sundar Pichai said in a statement.

The new disclosure, which included revenue totals going back to 2017, highlights just how quickly YouTube’s ad business has grown, with ad revenue nearly doubling since 2017 when the video platform took in $8.1 billion. Ad revenue in 2018 was $11.1 billion.

Up until now, Google has declined to break out YouTube’s revenue, which has been a source of much speculation.

Pichai also shed light on how YouTube’s subscription business is doing. The company now has more than 20 million subscribers to YouTube Premium and YouTube Music, and 2 million subscribers to YouTube TV. Overall, YouTube’s non-advertising revenue, which includes subscriptions and commerce, amounts to $3 billion.

The new stats also come as Google is facing increasing scrutiny over its ability to police its video platform for disinformation and other unsavory content. And Google, like Facebook, is facing an antitrust investigation.

By Karissa Bell

Sourced from Mashable India

By Deanna Ting

Users of Google search on desktops may have noticed a slight change over the last week and that change is affecting what they perceive as an ad. This represents a further blurring of the lines between ads and organic sources in search.

Beginning Jan. 13, Google redesigned its desktop search experience to feature favicons, or preferred icons, next to every single entry, including an ad. Always shown at the top of a page of search results, ads receive the same favicon treatment: the word “Ad” appears in bold, yet small black lettering. Site owners can also choose their featured favicon.

This redesign first appeared in May on Google search for mobile devices. At the time, Google said the move was prompted by a desire to help users “better understand where the information is coming from and what pages have what [they’re] looking for.” Bringing that same design to desktops this month adds to the consistency of the search experience, regardless of the device, according to Google.

This isn’t the first time Google has changed the look of ads in search.

“What an ad looks like has gotten more subtle over the years,” said Brooke Osmundson, associate director of paid search for NordicClick, a pay-per-click agency. “It’s started to blur the lines between what users thought was an ad or wasn’t.”

Search Engine Land has posted a helpful infographic showing how Google’s design tweaks in search have evolved, so users find it heard to distinguish between what’s an ad and what is not.

The concept of banner blindness loosely applies here, said SEO consultant Bill Hartzer. Now that all search results and ads have favicons, “searchers will see the favicons and overlook them, also ignoring the ‘Ad’ favicon as well,” he said. “So, they’re going to be more likely to click more on ads, which will benefit advertisers. But, in the long run, it will also benefit Google.”

Early results from NordicClick seem to support that theory. Osmundson pulled data for four different clients, comparing their respective search engine ads’ click-through rates (CTR) during Jan. 7 to 13  with those during Jan. 14 to 20, after Google’s desktop search changes went into effect.

For all four clients (a local health care company, two business-to-business companies and an e-commerce company), the desktop click-through rates increased and ranged from 4% to 10.5%. All clients had slight declines in the click-through rates on mobile devices.

Last May for three of those four companies, after Google made its mobile search changes, mobile click-through rates increased 17% to 18% for two companies during the May 24 to 30 stretch, as compared with the May 17 to 23 period.

“If we see increased CTR, we might be spending through our budgets more quickly than we realized,” Osmundson said. “That’s great for our clients but in marketing we need to do more due diligence in our jobs to make sure they have a good user experience on the site to see our dollars work a little bit harder for us.”

David Ogletree, owner of the WME Training pay-per-click training company, however, did not find a significant increase in click-through rates when he pulled similar data for his clients. “There was essentially hardly a change at all back in May and now in January, too,” he said, referring to data he pulled for his 50 clients.

And RPA Advertising has also not detected a change. “We haven’t seen a noticeable impact on our clients’ paid versus organic search traffic,” said Anthony So, group director of search for RPA. “Favicons will have a stronger impact in verticals that consist of a lot of affiliate marketing partners.”

Following the changes made to mobile search in May, Hartzer conducted his own experiment to see what would happen if he used the same “Ad” favicon on his own website. (The “Ad” favicon was active in search for three days in May until Google removed it.)

“When I added the ‘Ad’ favicon on my site, and Google showed it in the organic search engine results, there were less clicks, as the ‘Ad’ text (favicon) was next to the listing in the search engine results,” Hartzer said, adding that the results did not surprise him because right at that time people were still becoming accustomed to seeing the “Ad” favicons next to search results.

Over time, however, banner blindness will take hold, Hartzer suggested. And when users unconsciously ignore the “Ad” favicon, advertisers will see higher click-through rates, he said.

Banner blindness is also something RPA’s SEO lead Ethan Hulbert is concerned about. “Google points to its non-English searches to show that the translated label is more differentiable,” he wrote by email. “For instance, a French search on google.fr will bring up ads labeled with the full ‘Annonce,’” Hulbert said. “But since most searches we care about are English, this gives us little comfort.”

Added Hulbert: “I think this trend is worth paying attention to, and expect it to have a muted effect over time.”

While Ogletree did not see any change in click-through rates for his clients following Google’s search design changes, this will ultimately benefit advertisers and, of course, Google, he observed.

“Every decision they make is to get more money from advertisers,” Ogletree said. In the third quarter of 2019, Google parent company Alphabet made nearly $34 billion from advertising alone.

By Deanna Ting

Sourced from DIGIDAY

By Jared Newman.

Spare a thought, if you will, for the digital advertisers who have grown dependent on knowing your exact whereabouts at any instant.

New information shows that the biggest source for all this location data—namely, the smartphones that we carry around everywhere—is drying up as Apple and Google offer stronger, clearer privacy controls on their platforms.

Some recent data points to consider:

  • Since the launch of iOS 13 last fall, the amount of background location data that marketers collect has dropped by 68% according to Location Sciences, a firm that helps marketers analyze location data.
  • Location Sciences also found that foreground data sharing, which occurs only while an app is open, dropped by 24%.
  • A Google spokesman tells Fast Company that when Android users have the option to only share location data when they’re actively using an app, they choose that option about half the time.
  • As Digiday reported last week, apps are now seeing opt-in rates under 50% for collecting location data when they’re not in use, according to Benoit Grouchko, CEO of the ad tech business Teemo.

None of this means that location tracking is going away, but with more people opting out of sharing their precise location with apps, advertisers now have to make do with less accurate information. That in turn could make them rethink overly invasive tracking in the first place.

[Screenshot: Location Sciences]

All about the options

With iOS, users have been able to stop any app from collecting location data in the background since 2017, but Apple gave this feature much more prominence in iOS 13. If an app is gathering location data while it’s not in use, iOS can show a pop-up with an option to cut off access. Apple also added a “just once” option in iOS 13 that requires apps to ask for location permission every time they’re opened.

“As those particular options were made available to users, we do attribute that to the decrease in sharing,” says Jason Smith, Location Sciences’ chief business officer.

[Screenshot: Location Sciences]

Android’s location controls haven’t always been as useful, but the latest Android 10 release plays catchup with a similar “only while in use” setting when apps request location data. Like iOS, Android 10 also alerts users when an existing app collects location data in the background and provides a shortcut to stop the app from doing so.

These tools are becoming available just as we’re becoming more aware of how mobile apps have quietly trafficked users’ location histories. The New York Times, for instance, has reported on how apps like The Weather Channel, GasBuddy, and TheScore have collected detailed location data from users even while their apps aren’t in use, and it has documented how this supposedly anonymous data can pinpoint individuals based on their movements.

How apps will track you next

With Apple and Google providing less ready access to GPS location data, marketers will likely turn to IP addresses for location tracking instead, says Location Sciences’ Smith. Apps and websites can collect this data through the mobile or Wi-Fi network you’re using, and neither iOS nor Android offer any built-in controls to prevent it.

Still, IP addresses are less accurate than the precise GPS coordinates that apps had been collecting previously, which means marketers will have a tougher time tracking your precise whereabouts. In practical terms, that means location-based advertising will probably get a lot dumber in the near term, as marketers lose the ability to determine what store you visited or where you had lunch.

“You have an environment in which advertisers have been paying for—at a premium cost—high-quality, highly accurate GPS data,” Smith says. “They’re now confronted with a phenomenon in which that data is less available.”

[Screenshot: Location Sciences]

Location Sciences’ angle in all of this is to sell tools that help advertisers know what kind of location data they’re purchasing. That way, they don’t waste money on inaccurate information. Other players in the ad tech business, however, are hoping for a more fundamental shift toward privacy.

We’re sort of at the precipice of this educational environment.”

Raman Sidhu, VP of business development for the marketing analytics firm Beemray, says the new tools in iOS and Android—along with new regulations such as Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation and the California Consumer Privacy Act—could be a wake-up call for a complacent industry.

“There are lot of different solutions now that are getting a lot of momentum, which previously wouldn’t have gotten any momentum because there was no reason for the agencies to think about something outside of the box,” Sidhu says.

One of those solutions, of course, could be Beemray, which rejects the idea of following people around and instead uses contextual clues (approximate location data among them) to predict which messages might resonate. As a basic example, someone who’s sitting at a desk in London and reading about travel might see an ad for direct flights to New York. Since the resulting ad wouldn’t be as hyper-targeted as what advertisers are used to, Sidhu expects that brands would have to focus more on production values, or on forging direct relationships with consumers who might provide data more willingly.

“Advertising should get better for consumers, because rather than being followed around with the same ads . . . the ad should be complementary to that user’s moods, moments, mindsets, and emotions,” Sidhu says.

The other possibility is that users will look to further protect their location histories through Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), which can mask the IP addresses on which advertisers are increasingly relying. Google already offers a VPN service for customers of its Google Fi cellular plans, and my colleague Michael Grothaus has called for Apple to build a VPN into iOS. Firefox has been experimenting with VPN service as well, and Amazon’s Eero routers offer VPN service through the Eero Secure+ subscription program. It’s not hard to imagine VPN becoming a standard feature on our phones, computers, and home networks in the future.

Location Sciences’ Smith says that’s one possibility among many as people become more privacy-conscious.

“We’re sort of at the precipice of this educational environment,” he says, “in which people are now becoming aware of what their options are, how those options impact the security that they will receive, and how other third-party companies are being respectful and mindful of those options.”

 

Feature Image Credit: [Photos: Tyler Lastovich; Lorenzo/Pexels]

By Jared Newman

Jared Newman covers apps and technology from his remote Cincinnati outpost. He also writes two newsletters, Cord Cutter Weekly and Advisorator. More

Sourced from Fast Company

By

Are you ready for a Google-centric advertising world?

That’s what is about to happen. Last week saw Google announce it will be phasing out third-party cookies from Google Chrome. Chrome represents almost 70% of the market for web browsers on a desktop and 40% in mobile. Safari, Firefox and Microsoft have the rest, and many of them already include ad blockers, cookie-clearing and other tools that hamper digital targeting.

Google is going to offer its own ways to target leveraging Google data, which means if you work at an ad-tech company not named Google (or Facebook or Amazon, for that matter) then your ability to deliver targeted ad messages is going to be severely impacted.

This news does not come as a surprise. It has been rumored for years. And now it is coming to fruition.

Some industry pundits will make claims that this creates an opportunity for new ways to reach targeted audiences by proclaiming their technology does X or Y. These will be versions of fingerprinting or ad-DNA.

In any case, these claims will fall on deaf ears. The truth is that most marketers will see this, understand the impact, and move on. Moving on means they will either work with Google, or not worry about targeting, instead focusing on price.

A world where a third-party solution like the cookie is gone means prices will be pressured to drop to account for the untargeted nature of online advertising outside the Google parameters.

Google will still offer targeting. That targeting will be at a premium because it offers one of the only accurate ways to deliver a specific audience at scale. Outside of Google, ads will be scattershot, delivered to anyone on a platform where they come up.

The only way untargeted ads will work for marketers is if they are lower priced, to account for lower response rates. Then, just maybe, they have a chance to compete.

OTT and digital video ads may still have the opportunity to “target” based on data or context, but display will take a step back because the performance will be harder to achieve.

This does open the door for Facebook, strangely enough. Paid social is a channel where data can still be leveraged — although that will be using Facebook data on Facebook platforms. The dollars that were still hanging on for targeted display and native ads could easily be seen to shift to paid social, further padding the pockets of Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

Google said it has no desire to injure publishers looking to make money from ads, and it’s telling the truth. Its intent is to create a stronger sense of demand for Google products, and doing so does mean a negative impact on anyone not currently in its network.

The marketers are the ones who will drive this adoption. Marketers like to work with Google. No matter how many ad-tech companies call, reach out and proclaim to have an amazing solution, Google still gets the benefit of the doubt.

A marketer’s day is busy. There are many demands on our time, and we don’t have hours upon hours to decode and test a new vendor whose solution may be great, but has questions of scale.

Speaking from my own perspective, I like new ideas and new solutions, but I prioritize the ideas that have the most bang for the buck. Most of the time, that defaults back to the larger, established players we currently work with and who have proven to provide scalable value in the past.

So, what does that mean for the industry? It means cookies are about to (finally) become a relic of the past, along with popups, pop-unders and 468x60s. It means the gap between the large players and the smaller niche players is about to widen even further. It means OTT and digital video are about to become the final battlefield for the remaining digital ad budgets.

Here’s to seeing what happens in the next 11 months!

By

Sourced from MediaPost

Reporting by Paresh Dave; Editing by Richard Chang.

(Reuters) – Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) Google within two years plans to block a common way businesses track online surfers in its Chrome browser, endorsing costly changes to how the Web operates as it tries to satisfy increased privacy demands from users.

Google’s plan is to restrict advertising software companies and other organizations from connecting their browser cookies to websites they do not operate, the company said in a blog post on Tuesday. (bit.ly/2RmTYKK)

Apple made a similar move in 2017 in its Safari browser, but Chrome’s global market share is more than three times greater at about 64%, according to tracking company Statcounter.

Though the two-year goal is new, Google’s announcement had been expected within the industry for months. Financial analysts expect minimal effect on Google’s own ad business because it gathers data on users in many other ways.

But shares of some rival advertising software companies fell on Tuesday, including Criteo SA (CRTO.O) by 8% and Trade Desk Inc (TTD.O) by 1.4%.

For nearly three decades, cookies placed by relatively unknown companies on nearly every website have fueled advertising on the internet.

Cookies are a tool within browsers that allow website operators to save data about users, so that for example, they can keep a particular user logged into a website over multiple days.

But cookies also have given obscure software vendors, whose technology is used by website operators, a broad window into which webpages a user is visiting. When shared with advertisers, the data enable predictions about which ads the individual would find relevant.

Users and regulators have questioned how businesses with access to the browsing data store and share them since the advent of the cookie. But over the last three years, data breaches and new privacy laws in California and Europe have prompted major changes at internet businesses.

Google said its new restriction would not go into effect until alternatives that Google considers more privacy-preserving are viable. Any major transition in Web technology requires significant investment by website operators, and it remains unclear whether more limited data on users would depress online ad prices.

Justin Schuh, a director for Chrome engineering at Google, said initial feedback to proposals it announced in August “gives us confidence that solutions in this space can work.”

Feature Image Credit: FILE PHOTO: The Google app logo is seen on a smartphone in this picture illustration taken September 15, 2017. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo

Reporting by Paresh Dave; Editing by Richard Chang

Sourced from Reuters

By Peter Roesler.

Google surveyed consumers around the world to find out which factors drive people to make an online purchase.

It’s November, and the official start of the holiday season is right around the corner. In fact, some consumers began their holiday shopping back in October. However, the biggest shopping days of the season are still ahead of us, and business owners need to think about the best ways to create effective online marketing campaigns. To help business owners and marketers achieve their goals for the 2019 holiday season, Google has released some data about consumer behavior and how to create online campaigns that move people to action.

Google conducted a study in four international markets to help identify the things that matter most to consumers in that region. The data provides insight into shopper motivations in the U.S., U.K., India, and Brazil.

Contrary to what many people think, social media isn’t the grand motivator that some marketers think that it is. Social media content can increase awareness about a product. However, simply having something on Facebook or having an Instagram influencer promote the product isn’t enough to sway hearts and minds. After years of being bombarded with products and images on social media, many consumers in the U.S. are looking for more when they make online purchases.

Most Americans consider getting a good price on a high-quality item is more important than other factors. When ranking the factors that matter most to them, Google’s survey respondents noted that getting the lowest price for an item, free shipping, as well as deals and discounts are what motivate Americans the most when it comes to shopping online.

In the report, Google suggests, “When you can beat the competition, make sure you show it. And keep an eye on the market to get a sense of what specific products might be worth undercutting.” The report also notes, “Consumers in the U.S. are much more interested in fast shipping times than in-store pickup.”

The responses from the survey participants also showed how popular online shopping is with consumers in the U.S. For example, the average user bought more than four items of hard goods (i.e., not digital purchases) every month Similarly, the average person spent more than $150 on recent online shopping trips. The survey was conducted in October, so the rate purchase and the amount spent is likely to increase in months like November and December.

Marketers may be surprised by which things mattered to consumers. For example, having the ingredients listed for a product is more important than popularity on social media and even more important than recommendations from family and friends or loyalty rewards program.

For the most part, consumers in the U.K. were motivated by the same things that North American’s found enticing. However, because of the different tax systems in Europe, and the international shipping needed for many online transactions, U.K shoppers need to pay attention to other factors that could raise the price beyond what the person is willing to pay.

As Google stated in the report, “U.K. shoppers may pay more attention to customs, taxes, and shipping times in the near future, which might affect the rank and order of their values.”

Marketers should look at this recent report from Google to figure out what matters most for their target audience and for the goods they sell. The document breaks up the results for hard goods, soft goods, and everyday essentials. Using this data can help marketers create more compelling online campaigns.

For more information about tools that marketers can use to create better campaigns this holiday season, read this article on new ad options from Google.

Feature Image Credit: Getty Images

By Peter Roesler

Sourced from Inc.