I'm not making any friends with Ontario Tourism. Two weeks ago I said in this column they weren't using search. I was quickly corrected by Nick Pedota, who told me my claim was "wildly inaccurate" and that they in fact have "an extensive search program". But based on the following searches I did while in Toronto, they didn't show: Ontario vacations, Ontario resorts, Toronto vacations, Ontario getaways and Ontario holidays. According to Google Trends and their keyword research tool, these are the most common searches, by a substantial margin.

If You're Not Seen, You're Not Doing Search

Here's the reality of search marketing. Its one thing to say "you're doing search" internally and it's a totally different thing to have the searcher realize that "you're doing search". The smart thing to do here would be to give Nick and Ontario Tourism the retraction they're looking for and say I made a mistake (which I did). But this proves too good an example of the disconnect I see all the time; managing a search campaign to budgets, not objectives. I stand by my original claim: Canadian advertisers aren't clueing into the power of search.

Nick wasn't really in a mood to share many details of their campaign, but he did share that they're were bidding on thousands of "targeted keyphrases" and were using heavy geo-targeting to focus on their prime markets (Ontario and the border states). He said that's simply "smart marketing". I can't disagree. It makes sense to target in on your best clicks first, especially if budgets are limited.

Where's the Money Going?

But in this case, are budgets really limited? Let me share some things I was able to dig up on the site. First of all, Ontario Tourism is doing print (lots of print) and TV (lots of TV). The goal?  To drive people to their website. Full page 4 color ads are running multiple times in over 70 dailies and weekly newspapers and 9 magazines. One 4 color full page ad in the Toronto Star would run about $54,000 (there's a certain amount of guessing here, as print rate cards are really a mathematical exercise in confusion and frustration). Circulation of the Toronto Star is 350,000 (on an average day). An excellent conversion rate for a newspaper ad would be 0.5% That means, ideally, 1750 people would actually visit the Ontario Tourism website. Now, I have never in my life seen a newspaper ad convert this well, but even if it did, that would be a cost per visitor of $30.85. If the ad doesn't work that well, the average cost climbs dramatically. And you pay whether or not the ad works.

What People Actually Use

Now, courtesy Yahoo Canada and a recent survey, let's look at what actual travelers cite as the most important influencers in making travel plans. Search and websites are tied for number one and two, used by 51% of respondents in a recent survey. Newspapers and print? Only used by 7%. But yet, only 2.1% of Canadian ad budgets get spent on search, and 42% gets spent on Newspapers and Magazines. I couldn't get any specific percentages for Ontario Tourism, but one only has to look at their campaign page to see that search is very likely getting only a fraction of what's going to newspapers and magazines. And don't even get me started on the TV buys.

The Search Story

So, where is Ontario Tourism in the search results? As Nick shared, they're only geo-targeting the prime markets, and then only for a 3 month period (April through June). Only 1 of the 7 highest traffic key phrases I found (using an Ontario IP) returned an ad or an organic listing for Ontario Travel (the site also hasn't been organically optimized). More specific phrases, like Ontario Summer Vacations or Ontario Wine Getaways, did return more ads. But by bidding on specific phrases (even thousand of "long tail" ones) and not on the more popular ones, Ontario Tourism is catching less than 10% of all the people using search to plan a vacation in Ontario. And unless you're in the top sponsored ad locations (which few of the ads I saw were) you're actually only being seen by a small percentage of those searchers (usually 10 to 30% of them) on the results pages you do appear on. So, according to 97 out of 100 people who are using search to find the official site for Ontario Tourism, they're not "doing search". By the way, you could maintain top spot in Google and Yahoo for all the top traffic phrases for less than $2 per visitor. Remember, that ad in the Toronto Star cost, at a minimum, 15 times that!

Again, let's recap. What's the purpose of the campaign? To drive people to the website. And not just any website. THE official website of Ontario Tourism, the site most people are looking for on these key phrases.

And You're Spending Your Money Where?

Is it really "smarter" to ignore 97% of the people who are actively searching online to find you so you can spend more money running ads in newspapers for the 99.5% of people who have no interest in your site at all? And the real irony here is that if people don't click on a search ad, you don't pay! Take a fraction of that budget from the Toronto Star and blow out the geo-targeting and time parameters and go for the high traffic phrases. After all, there might be people in Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia that are planning a trip to Ontario. Or, perhaps they're planning their trip in September, or February.  If not, it's not costing you anything. Try getting the Toronto Star to offer the same pricing model!

Is this really smarter marketing? You decide. The readership of this column includes some of the smartest marketers on the planet. Blog about this and give me your opinion. Maybe I'm missing something, but I've decided I shouldn't apologize for trying to get advertisers to spend money more effectively. After all, in this case, it's really our money they're spending. At least, it would be if I was an Ontario tax payer. Something tells me after this column, it might be a good thing I live 2000 miles away. Like I said, I'm not making any friends in Ontario.

The search marketing industry is currently going through a transition phase in which many companies are considering bringing SEO in-house rather than relying on the services of 3rd party search marketing firms.  With training from organizations such as the SEMPO Institute as well as the need for companies to have tighter integrations with online marketing efforts, the transition to in-house becomes a much more obvious choice.

I thought it would be interesting to ask some of the top In-house SEO professionals their thoughts regarding the biggest advantages of In-house SEO.  I asked 6 different analysts all from various companies such as: Business.com, ResortQuest, NetConcepts, Classmates.com (formerly), Time Inc and Yahoo.  Here were there responses:

"Often search engine optimization is an after-thought, if it is thought of at all. The biggest benefit for bringing search marketing in-house is that you have someone internal who can champion and represent SEO in the hallways, at meetings, and through relationship building. Also, it gives everyone in the company someone to reach out to for an immediate answer and/or involvement when the need arises." - Jessica Bowman, Business.com

"Having search marketing in-house makes search marketing a top priority. Thus, ROI becomes much more important. Often, out-sources solutions focus on traffic, and not the quality of the traffic. Because many at the executive-level do not understand and/or appreciate search engine marketing, an in-house team is forced to constantly look for new ways to improve ROI. Plus, having the department in-house allows for quick changes and strategies. This can often counter-act any unwanted press or take advantage of news-worthy items quickly" - John Ellis, ResortQuest

"The biggest advantage in bringing search marketing in-house is the combined synergy from: long-term cost savings, long-term revenue/conversion improvement, and having readily-available expertise and advocacy on all stages of online marketing projects from inception to project launch." Chris Smith, Netconcepts

"The biggest advantage to bringing Search Marketing in house really depends on the company and that scale of the campaigns. Search Marketing as a whole is usually split into 2 categories; 1) Paid Search Marketing (Or PPC) and 2) Natural Search Marketing (or SEO). Even when the paid search campaigns are handled in house there is usually a vendor brought in to manage the bidding, and the overall campaigns. The same can generally go for natural SEO. Vendors are often brought in for more man power with a larger site, or to help the in house SEO justify projects or bugs to those that still remain skeptical. Even the larger companies like Classmates.com and other even larger corporations bring in vendors to help with their paid and natural campaigns." Jennifer Mathews Somogyi, Classmates.com (formerly)

"I think the biggest advantage to having an in house SEO expert, is the familiarity with all of the in-house technology and business cultures. Having worked with many of the top consultants and SEO agencies I have noticed that once the consultant drops off a document the internal work of translating that document into ownership and getting approval starts. In many cases proper prioritization of the recommendations based on business needs to be applied. In addition its very easy for a company to just say yes to a recommendation from an outside agency. As an in-house expert you need to understand what the recommendation truly does and how to best execute for your specific business with your specific resources. Making sure you execute the SEO items that have the biggest SEO impact with the least amount of effort. " - Rudy DeDominicis, Time Inc

"The biggest advantage would be understanding. Having worked in agencies and in-house I've learned immersing oneself in products, platforms and content affords a depth of understanding no out-sourced expertise can match. It takes time to get to know how things work, and more importantly, how the people in the company function individually and as a team. I see myself as an internal consultant, advising at every step of production and liaising with almost every department; programmers, web developers, designers, content editors, project managers, sales and marketing. Educating each stakeholder is a vital factor in success, illustrating the benefits of SEO, teaching best practices and passing on knowledge to create a culture where sites are designed to accommodate human users as well as search engines." - Aidan Beanland, Yahoo

After reading the thoughts from the experts above it appears the 2 of the main advantages are Understanding and Relationships.  Understanding relates to knowing the people, the environment, the business and the technology.  Relationships primarily deals with the trust and comfort factor of dealing with someone within the same organization rather than a 3rd party. However, both go hand in hand when trying to form the optimal In-house SEO team.

Also checkout, my in-house SEO Series at Web Analytics World.

So Jerry Yang is no longer just the chief Yahoo, whatever that means.  Terry Semel has vacated Yahoo's CEO office and Jerry Yang has set up shop there.  At the same time, Sue Decker has stepped into the President's role.  While Terry Semel's departure didn't come as a great surprise to anyone in the search space, Jerry Yang's appointment as CEO did raise a few eyebrows.  In retrospect, the move seems to make a lot of sense but in the numerous conversations I've had on this topic in the last few weeks, no one mentioned Yang's name as Yahoo's possible savior.

With this move will come the inevitable speculation about how this will bolster Yahoo's chances of competing against Google.  Just last week I was interviewed by Bloomberg TV and was asked about that very topic.  At that time I mentioned that the biggest difference was the lack of corporate focus at Yahoo and the fact that focus, at least on the search side, has never been an issue for Google.

My belief is that there's a lot behind the scenes that we're not privy to which will explain Yang's appointment as CEO when it becomes public knowledge.  My suspicion is that there may be an acquisition deal in the works and this is a "feel good" move to help shore up Yahoo's eroding stock price until the deal can be finalized.  But whether or not that's the case, I did want to take a few minutes to make some comparisons between Google and Yahoo in light of Monday's news.  

Sacred Cow = Balanced Ecosystem?

Search is the sacred cow at Google.  More correctly, the search user experience is the sacred cow of Google.  And it's the quality of that search experience that has driven the vast majority of Google's revenue and has put them in the position where they can pose a significant threat in virtually every information channel in the world.

Recently I was worried about search appearing to take a backseat at Google.  With all the media hype surrounding Google's moves into other channels, I was worried that perhaps the corporation itself had lost sight of how important search was in their overall strategy.  It appears my fears were misplaced.  Matt Cutts was quick to comment on a blog post that search is still integral to everything that Google does and that the team was hard at work improving that search experience.  Shortly after that, the personalization and universal search announcements began to roll out of Google labs.  From everything I've been seeing, Google is more intent on improving the search user experience than ever and is using universal search and personalization as the hub that will drive a much more extensive user interaction with web content and information.  Of course, a more efficient delivery of advertising goes hand-in-hand with that strategy.

I've always been a big believer in corporate sacred cows.  These are the untouchable tenets that drive the overall strategy of the company.  From everything I've seen, heard or read about Google the search user experience is Google's sacred cow.  The company is focused on engineering the most effective and relevant connection between a user and their desired content.  The advantage of the sacred cow if that it gives an unquestionable rallying point for the company and the company can focus on.  All else is fair game but that single strategic foundation is what keeps the company on track.

Yahoo has no sacred cows.  In all my conversations with the company there's a lot of talk about community and a balanced ecosystem.  Those very terms suggest compromise.  There are a ton of Yahooers (although, like the Yahoo share price, this number is eroding as well) who are passionate about their jobs and would love to see their particular interest elevated to the status of the corporate sacred cow, but they've become frustrated with the lack of support from the CxO level. Just last year, Sue Decker was quoted saying that Yahoo is quite content to be number two in the search game.  In fact, their strategy was trying to hang on to their eroding market share.  It was, in effect, a public capitulation to Google.  That announcement hit Yahoo search team squarely in the gut.  They definitely were not ready to give up on search.

Eric Schmidt = Terry Semel?

From the outside, it may appear that Eric Schmidt and Terry Semel served fairly similar roles.  In both cases there are cofounders still actively involved in the business.  The cofounders were incredibly young and lacked traditional "business expertise".  And both Schmidt and Semel stepped in with a significant amount of past experience.  But there the similarities ended.  From the very beginning, Schmidt understood that while he served as CEO, Page and Brin were always going to take a very active role in running Google.  And Schmidt stepped into his role with a tremendous amount of respect for the sheer intellectual horsepower that Sergey and Larry brought to Google.  He never wanted to remove them from their decision-making roles.  He understood that it was a key element in Google's success.

Semel, on the other hand, came from the Hollywood Warner Bros. power structure and was intent on making Yahoo the new entertainment giant.  That strategy, however, had one fatal flaw.  No one at Yahoo, least of all Semel, understood that media consumption was going to be an entirely different game online. Prepackaged bits of content, carefully packaged for easily digested consumer consumption, pushed out to us by a media giant was not how we were going to find our entertainment in the future.  Now, we were completely in control and we would choose what, where and when we would watch.  We didn't need a power channel pushing us content.  We needed a better tool for finding the content we were interested in.  The rules had changed and Yahoo didn't have a new version of the rulebook.  No one had a version of the rulebook, because it hasn't been written yet.

Larry + Sergey = Jerry + David?

Finally, to me the biggest difference between Yahoo and Google is in the day-to-day role of the founders.  Sergey and Larry have never backed off from their control positions at Google.  In fact one of the running jokes at Google is Sergey and Larry's tendency to swoop in, roll up their sleeves and bury themselves in the minutia of one particular item or project, much to the frustration of the team working on it.  There is a Google wide conspiracy aimed at trying to keep Sergey and Larry's hands off of any important code. As frustrating as this micromanaging might be to the individuals involved, it does give Page and Brin an intimate knowledge of everything that's happening at the company.  Their voracious intellectual appetite gobbles up this tremendous amount of detail and somehow digests it into strategic decisions that are very seldom wrong.  Someone recently told me that one of the reasons that Brin has some challenges relating to the real world is that he's never been wrong in his life.  He doesn't know what it means to fail.

David Filo and Jerry Yang, while still actively involved in Yahoo, have been quietly influencing from behind the scenes. They're easier going and not nearly as intense as Brin and Page.  They suggest rather than demand.  They stepped back, willing to let Semel run the show. In traditional wisdom, they did exactly what entrepreneurs and cofounders should do.  They passed the torch on.  But in this case, it didn't work.  Yahoo lost its way.  Brin and Page's nettlesome but much-needed day-to-day involvement kept Google on track. Yahoo was left to founder and flopped back and forth, never being exactly sure what it was.  Even in the few hours since the announcement was made (as of the writing of this column) there is already been reports that this is exactly what Yahoo needs.  Jerry Yang is recognized as a champion for the user experience on Yahoo and is stepping back into the CEO old role seems to signal a return to that fundamental principle.  In my view, it's too little too late.  If the user was really that important to Yahoo, why were they pushed out of the driver's seat in the first place?

In this day and age as B2B marketers flock to online promotion and marketing, a typical business to business (B2B) marketing campaign consists of search engine optimization, email advertising, sponsored search advertising, vertical search engine visibility, blogging, podcasts, social media marketing, white paper syndication, RSS feeds and syndication and viral marketing.  Traditionally the end goal is lead generation or is it?

In 2007, simply generating a bunch of leads from your website is not good enough for your organization to be successful.  Any well planned marketing program should be able to generate leads.  The difficult part becomes understanding your target market, their needs and actual lead qualification of your prospects.  So when putting an online strategy together, what are you, the B2B marketer (or Marketing Manager, or CEO, or Company Founder) looking for?  What do you want your online marketing strategy to consist of?

Last week I posed the question why is online strategy so hard for B2B marketers?  What are the most signifigant challenges for B2B marketers?  Industry reports such as a recent MarketingSherpa report on Business Technology suggest that a key problem for marketers in 2007 is the increase of the "ever-growing committee."  The report goes on to say that "…Whether it's increasing office politics or burned fingers from technology decisions in the dot-com bubble heyday, business technology prospects are bulking up on committee members…"  Knowing this, does this mean that B2B marketers are looking for ways to deal with per-accpint viral marketing efforts and evangelism marketing campaigns?  The answer… most definitely yes.  What does this mean for your online marketing strategies?  What do B2B marketers want as a part of their online strategy?

Here are a number of items that should be considered when developing an effective online marketing strategy.

• Look for avenues such as social media sites that can help place yourself in areas that your prospects frequent.  Are they spending time on industry forums or social networking sites?
• Understand who makes up the decision makers committee for your prospects versus who make up the influencers
• Look for an effective means of prospect education materials.  Evaluate the effectiveness of each… would you be better served using webinars or whitepapers?
• Examine ways to more effectively qualify leads who come from your online presence (not just your website, but any presence that you have on the web.)
• Provide case studies and proof to help intercept your prospect as the progress across their buying cycle.  Provide testimonials through statements on your website or actual audio or video testimonials from satisfied clients.
• Establish a feedback and lead nurtuting mechanism that allows you to hear what the prospects are thinking.  Reputation management is huge in this day and age.  It is better to hear what your customers or prospects think directly than by finding it out on a industry blog or MySpace page that could damage your reputation.

These are but a few of the common items that B2B marketers look for when developing online marketing strategies.   What are some others?  We'd like to hear from you as to what you are looking for as part of your online marketing strategy.  Drop us a line and let us know.  your ideas may be featured in an upcoming article.

It occurred to me recently that what the world needs is strategy.  Strategy for man-kind to put an end to poverty, to senseless war, to global warming, to suffering and famine.  Vision, direction and focus through a global strategy.  Seems so simple doesn't it? Strategy is what makes the world of business turn.  It's what can determine success or magnify failure (through a lack of).  Strategy when carefully planned and implemented can lead to great success and with positive results. So why is developing an effective online strategy so difficult for B2B marketers?

What is Strategy Anyways?

When I think of strategy I think of direction and vision.  Where are we trying to go in the future?  How can we change the world and make it a better place?  How can we provide a better solution than our competition?  What resources are required to fullfill this strategy?  With regards to business, Johnson and Scholes' Exploring Corporate Strategy define strategy as:

"Strategy is the direction and scope of an organization over the long term: which achieves advantage for the organization through it's configuration of resources within a challenging environment, to meet the needs of markets and to fullfill stakeholder expectations."

It's a pretty comprehensive definition.  If we break it down and simplify it, strategy consists of:

• Direction - thinking about the long term
• Markets - where should you make the best use of your business?  What markets should you compete in?
• Advantage - How can you perform better than the competiton?
• Scope - What is required to  achieve an advantage in the desired markets?
• Resources - What assets, skill sets, partnerships, technical solutions are required to in order to carry out the strategy?
• External Factors - What are the external factors that will impact your ability to compete?
• Stakeholders - What are the values and expectations of those who have a vested interest in the business and potentially may pull the plug of the implementation of the strategy?

Online Strategy Adds a Whole Other Dimension

So why is online strategy so hard for B2B marketers?  For B2B marketers, online strategy adds a whole other dimension to "strategy".  For one, online marketing is still a relatively new avenue and there has been a lot of hesitation from many organizations when it comes to SEO and online marketing.  Many C-Suite Executives still do not understand or "get" SEO.  They feel that there is little value from it, when in fact it is a proven fact that search marketing yields higher returns with less investment than traditional media channels.  Without buy-in from the execs, and the rest of the company it becomes extremely difficult to create and implement an online strategy. 

Online strategies must be flexible.  The world of search and online marketing is changing at an amazing pace.  Those who do not have a dynamic strategy in place will quickly find themselves playing catchup. Personalization of search results is coming and many refuse to accept that this is the next wave of search.  Early adopters who develop online strategies to deal with personalization will be in a much better place than those who do not and as a result will develop a competitive edge in the search space.

Competition in the online world is potentially endless.  Anyone can set up and market a website.  In the B2B space there are often misleading sites that distract the searcher from finding the best solution for their needs.  Not to mention the complexity of the search engine algorithms that can have a direct impact on your sites visibility with one major indexing update.

Traditionally many SEO's focus on tactics and not strategy.  This is something that we have seen with the serach industry shows.  Take the recent Search Marketing Expo in Seattle for instance.  It was billed as a strategic show, yet from what I have heard it featured traditional tracks that focus on search engine marketing tactics.  This is really no different than other industry shows including the popular Search Engine Strategy conferences. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of good stuff that comes out of these shows, it's just not strategy that comes out. 

Of course establishing an online strategy usually means that you have to be aligned with the overall company strategy.  This means incorporating the strategy at different levels of business.  From the overall corporate strategy down to business unit strategy to operational strategy and how each part of the business is organized to deliver to the business unit and corporate strategies.

So you see there are numerous reasons why online strategies are not easy to accomplish for B2B marketers.  If you are fortunate enough to get buy-in from the stakeholders and are able to align the online strategy with the company's overall corporate strategy you are still faced with the hardest part… strategy implementation.  Translating it into action resulting in a positive return on your investment.

To recap, Universal Search is a term coined by Google in which results from different vertical search engines (images, video, news etc…) are integrated into Google's regular search results.  The idea is that textual listings may not necessarily be the most relevant result for a user's query.

But when will these different search results show up? For example, what causes a video of a scene from Star Wars to appear within the organic search results for the query: "Darth Vader." Obviously it has to do with Google's sophisticated algorithms which can correlate the right content to a user's query, however here are some factors that I think can help influence the Universal Search results:

1. Number of Searches per Individual Search Silo - This theory is based on shear volume for a given query on a given vertical search engine. For instance if the query "scenic mountains" has a high number of searches within the image search, perhaps this influences the top images to appear within Universal search for the same query.  
2. Performance through ratings and views - This applies mostly to Video Search because on YouTube and Google Video both ratings and the number of views are kept track of. Could the ratings/views affect the appearance of videos with Universal Search?
3. Clicks per listing - Google applies this same type of algorithm on both AdWords and organic search results therefore it's something that can help Google gauge the relevance of non-text based results.
4. Time Spent - With the Google Toolbar installed on so many users' computers as well Google Analytics installed on so many websites, Google can start to understand how engaged users are with a website (after a user clicked on a listing) by measuring time spent.
5. Return Visits - If a user clicks on a result listing, visits a website/image/news listing, returns immediately and clicks on another listing and continues this cycle, will Google start decreasing the quality of the websites/image/news listings that were selected?
6. Usability - While at Searchology I found out that Google performs rigorous usability testing using eye tracking to further understand users' search behavior and reactions to different types of search results.

How Can You Leverage Universal Search?

Universal Search requires a wide-range content strategy in addition to simply text.  Here are some tactics worth looking into in terms of Universal Search:

• When using images in your web pages consider adding related keywords to both the name of the image (filename - ie: imagename.jpg) and the alt text
• When uploading videos to YouTube and Google video take full advantage of adding a full description about your video.
• Promote your uploaded videos on your blog or through press releases.  The higher your ratings and the number of views, the more authoritative your video.
• Apply to be a Google News Source. If this doesn't work, submit your latest content to sites which are Google News Sources.
• Keep visitors on your site longer by adding enticing content which compares competitors, offers pricing and gives them something tangible to take away (whitepapers, data sheets).

Original Post: Web Analytics World

Last week I posed the question, that in the SEO 2.0 era will content still be king? In the article some key points of interest revolved around how 75% of technology seraches are made online. What this boils down to is that B2B marketers need to provide fresh content to the online world. There is and always will be a demand for content. People, technology buyers included, are in search of information. So what does this mean for B2B marketers who are trying to generate leads through their website?

In a report originally released in February 2007 from KnowledgeStorm and MarketingSherpa on "connecting through content" stated that about 85% of technology buyers need to see information about a new technology or solution at least three times for it to register. The study provided great insight on the importance of site content for technology buyers. It is no secret that when prospects are in the research stage of the buying funnel, they are looking for vendor content to help them narrow their selection process. They are looking for content that speaks their language and content that addresses their dilemma and needs.

Technology buyers are no different and here's why:

• Technology buyers spend a lot of time online on technology research. As much of 75% of the information gathering is conducted online. Yet it is interesting to note that B2B marketers only provide about 60% of their content online. Why is that even though the majority of tech buyers research information online? A little hint here for B2B marketers; provide your audience with all of the content they need, provide it when they need it and in a manner that they want to see it.

• Technology buyers seek educational content. This content should be well written, concise and consist of high quality informative information. They want to see solution comparisons, they want to see pricing. Provide it. Do not force them to go to a competitor's site because if they leave chances are they are not going to return.
• Technology buyers believe that the information they find online is of greater or equal value to the content that they find offline. Those who search online like to find exactly what they are looking for quickly and effieiciently.
• Tech buyers look to vendor sites as being authoritative resources. If your site doesn't have all of the information they seek, they are not likely to short list your company as they work through the research and selection process of their buying cycle.
• Repetition of content is key. Technology buyers need to hear the message over again and again. As mentioned earlier, many need at least three pieces of information before the information registers.
• Provide the right type of content. According to the study by KnowledgeStorm and MarketingSherpa, Technology Buyers list whitepapers as the most frequently read content. On the contrary, less than one third of tech buyers claim to access Webcasts. Yet over 60% of marketers spend time and money sponsoring or using webcasts as part of their marketing programs. This is an interesting topic for debate. Are webcasts really effective? Is this time and money well spent?
• Technology Buyers want fresh content. This means up-to-date stats, pricing, comparisons etc. Not only do they want it, but they expect to find new and fresh content.
• Technology Buyers are looking for content that speaks to them and will solve their problems. Many B2B marketers provide content that "sells" their business or new company developments… yet doesn't explain or "tell" the audience how these new developments will solve their problem. Numerous sites do this. There is a serious disconnect here. Understand your audience and that it is all about your audience. The consumer/prospect is in control.
• Cookie-cutter does not work. Marketers need to provide different types of content and customize their content so it stands out.
• Technology Buyers are looking for content that is specific to their issues and their problem. Create content information that is targeted to their industry and their business.

Most search engine marketers will tell you that content is important for the search engines so that they can index and rank your site. Well that is true, creation of content becomes more important for your audience. Web content is important period. If you are marketing to technology buyers, website content becomes extremely important. Technology Buyers seek specific types of content at various stages of their buying cycle. Why not create this content and intercept your audience at these stages?

Original Post on Website Content Proves Important for Technology Buyers found on SEO-Space.

I should have known as soon as I saw the speaker roster. Matt Cutts, Tim Mayer, Danny Sullivan, Michael Gray and myself on the same panel. Guess who got the lion's share of attention in the Q&A and after session scrum? Michael and I might as well have checked out early and hit the Google Dance before the crowds.The title of the panel at the inaugural SMX in Seattle was Search Personalization: Fear or Fear Not. As Danny often does, he set the panel up to generate a little debate: Michael Gray vs Google, Yahoo vs Google. I was like Switzerland, in neutral territory. Danny did get his conflict, with Michael taking a few shots at Google and Tim Mayer throwing down the gauntlet about the lack of transparency on Google's personalized search results.

Guess What? SEO's are not your Average Search User!

To be honest, I was a little taken aback that the audience didn't jump all over how personalization was going to change SEO. Most of the questions from the crowd centered on how you opt out of personalized search and why personalization wasn't good for them. I have some issues with that, which of course I'll share in this column:

- First, this crowd was trying to argue from a user's point of view. Okay, they're SEO's (this was the organic track) and most of them have been using search since Lycos was a little baby spider. Just how typical do you think these users are?

- Secondly, I question their motives. Do they hate personalization as a user, or as an organic optimizer? My guess is the later, but it just doesn't seem to be very noble to joust with Google because they're making your job harder. Far better to cry foul as a user than as a PO'd organic optimizer. Like somebody said to me after, do you really think Marissa Mayer is losing sleep because the Google user experience for SEO's isn't all they want it to be?

- This was a perfect opportunity to start planning for the new world of SEO, post personalization. There's a ton of value we can add, as smart, pro-active practitioners, but I didn't see anyone take the opportunity to delve into this. Perhaps the really smart ones were keeping their mouths shut, content to let their competitors bitch about the inevitable while they plotted their take over.

- I found everyone fixated on the current threshold of personalization on the page, taking comfort in the fact that it's only impacting a small number of searches. I reminded them that this threshold is a totally arbitrary one set by Google, and could (and will) change at any time.

- Everyone taking a siloed view of personalization, looking at the organic results in isolation. It's almost like they're assessing the amount of damage control required. I'm not sure they realize the import of personalization. This is a rule changer, a paradigm shifter. This is the new generation of search functionality. It changes the game dramatically. Whatever happens on the organic side will roll over to the sponsored side. It will drive universal search. It will drive everything.

- Finally, this is not just happening on Google. Microsoft's recent comments made it very clear they're thinking long and hard about personalization. Tim Mayer cautioned me not to make the mistaken assumption that just because Google was first out with personalization, they're the only ones working on it. In fact, Matt was quite delighted when he found an article in the Times Online where Yahoo VP Tapan Bhat confessed at the Next Web conference in Amsterdam that Personalization was the future of the Web, including search. You can define personalization in a number of different ways, but however you do it, it dramatically changes our online experience.

So, I leave you with this. I went into the SMX session with four fundamental changes I see emerging from personalization that SEO's and SEM's have to think about, right now. No one asked me for the slide deck after the session. There was not one question about strategies for leveraging personalization. Everyone was more interested in grilling Matt on why the opt-out link disappeared from the results page. Although I'm tempted to join the smart and silent search marketers, I think I'll make one last attempt to share this with the SEM/SEO community. Perhaps in a white paper, perhaps a future column. But I'm only going to do it if you're serious about pushing the envelope into this new opportunity. Drop me an email (gord@enquiro.com) and let me know. Otherwise, I'll just shut up and nod my head while you bitch about the fact that it's too hard to opt out of personalized search. You'll excuse me if I don't answer; you see, my mind is on something else.

There's been a lot of discussion lately on personalized search and the impact that it will have on SEO and Search Engine Marketing.  Many online marketers were cringing at the thought of personalized search results for the simple fact that rankings will no longer mean as much as they used to.  Other search engine marketers welcome personalization as this means that relevant results will come to the forefront and that a more strategic approach will be required (as opposed to strictly tactics being employed to generate rankings.)

So where does that leave SEO in the future?  Great question.  If I knew the answer, I'd bottle it up and sell it to the masses.  A large component of SEO today is content.  Cliches asside, content is king when it comes to search engines.  An overlooked fact is that content is also king when it comes to the users of search.  In fact a recent study conducted by KnowledgeStorm and MarketingSherpa revealed that technology buyers crave content.  Whether it's in the form of news, product information, opinions, advice, comparisons, buyers of technology products are seeking authoritative content online.  Let's look at these findings further.

Opportunities for B2B Technology Marketers

According to the study, almost 75% of all technology searches are made online.  A significant factor was that these technology buyers valued vendor-generated content with a large portion of this content coming from white papers, case studies, and corporate Websites.  Further over 60% of those surveyed look for different kinds of information at various points in the buying cycle.  

As B2B marketers this means that while content is king now, it will be even more important in the future.  SEO 2.0 will be content focused.  Regardless of what search engines will look like five, ten, twenty years in the future, the Internet will be a universe of vast knowledge and content.  B2B marketers will need to continue to provide content across the various forms to ensure that the user is finding what they require and in the proper medium they require.  We are starting to see this now with social networks, podcats, online video etc.  

As part of SEO 2.0, the key for B2B online marketers will be in the frequency and amount of fresh content that is created and dispersed.  Technology buyers for example search for new information based on their needs on a daily and weekly basis.  Many users require multiple pieces of content before they acquire the information that they truly seek.  It will be up to marketers to provide frequently updated, informative content to address the needs of users throughout the various stages of the buying cycle.  Determine what your audience want, how they want it served up and when they want it.  The question becomes how do B2B marketers accomplish this?

How to Provide Key Content 

Without getting into too much detail at this point, here are some ways that B2B marketers can provide fresh content in the online world:

• Blogging -  I never understand why so many site owners do not feature blogs on their sites.  Blogs are a tremendous vehicle for getting informative content out there in a quick manner.  Along with blogs comes the syndication of your content through RSS.

• Updated Page Content - Keep your existing page content fresh and update ensuring that the informative provided is what your audience is really looking for.
• Write New Content - content needs to be fresh, up to date and informative.  Archive old content for your users and promote your new content as such.
• Create White Papers - white papers are a favorite amongst many B2B prospects and buyers.  According to study mentioned earlier, white papers are the most frequently read content with over 70% stating that they look for white papers as a trusted source of information.
• Provide Case Studies and Product Literature - Understand that your audience requires more than one piece of content (on average three) before they become interested in your content.
   
• Experiment with Emerging Media - while Mobile Search may work well for B2C it may not be the best avenue for B2B marketers at this point.  However look at emerging media including podcasts, and online video

These are but a sample of how B2B marketers can create content in the SEO 2.0 universe.  SEO 2.0 means content, content and more content.  But don't just create content for the sake of creating content.  Create content that targets your audience.  Understand what they are looking for and when.  If they are looking for comparisons between you and your competition, provide it to them, don't let them go to your competitor's site and find it there.  If they are looking for industry stats give them the most recent data.  If they want pricing, guess what you better give them pricing.  Understand how to write web content for your audience.

You want to "optimize" for personalized search?  Think content.  Providing relevant, informative content through various media is the only way you will reach your audience via personalized search.  Users want relevant content to their needs. They want specific types of content at distinct points in the buying cycle.  Understand the user and what content they want.  SEO 2.0 will mean having content within personalized search results in various formats.  Content you develop needs to focus on the user.  Even with SEO 2.0 content will still be king!