We blogged last week about the EU Directive on ePrivacy – Cookies and The EU Directive: Don’t Panic and  Cookies and The EU Directive: What Brands Need To Do

The Information Commissioners Office has now (with less than 30 days to go) published some guidelines. They state some important points:

• The Directive applies to mobile devices and applications, as well as  “normal” websites; earlier EU/ UK government documents didn’t always explicitly state this, but it was widely assumed
• That the Directive applies to: “how you use cookies and similar technologies for storing information on a user’s equipment” which means future developments like Connected TVs will be covered by this
• That Flash cookies (i.e. Locally Stored Objects) are covered in case of any doubt
• Acknowledges (see our earlier posts) that browsers do not currently have the functionality to a) categorise cookies by purpose and b) offer consumers an easy way to control cookies by these categories (and therefore purpose)
• States that browser settings are currently not therefore suitable to “rely on” for getting consent from consumers, despite the Directive mentioning them
• That adding consent clauses to site Terms and Conditions is acceptable, but consumers have to be alerted to this change – they must know about it to therefore give consent
• That cookies set as a result of choosing to use a particular site feature also require consent (slightly contradicting earlier suggestions that any cookies required for site functionality were exempt). To be explicit: only cookies that are “strictly necessary” are exempt – e.g. a cookie that enables a shopping basket to work
• Further examples of how to gain consent for particular types of cookies might be issued in future by the ICO

Translating the ICO Guidance Into Action

So what do brands actually need to do? Here are our suggestions, replacing our earlier post on the topic – but of course, we also recommend checking with in-house lawyers, and keeping an eye on the ICO site and industry press. As we’ve commented before, the 25th is just the start.

1: Audit your cookies and tags

The first step is the obvious one – make sure you know which cookies your site drops across all of its pages and as a result of on-page functionality being used. We suggest you review the tracking tags on site, too – always a useful housekeeping exercise and a perfect opportunity to remove any that are no longer required, and to consider a tag carrier solution to make this process easier in future.

We can assist Steak clients with this and suggest a tag carrier and attribution solution that we believe is significantly more advanced that the current market leader – and is being  developed with privacy issues in mind. Please email your contact for more info.

It’s worth noting that redundant tags add to page load speeds – something Google started paying more attention to a few years ago – and slower loading pages will always impact negatively upon conversion rates.

2: Categorise your cookies and tags

As the Directive allows greater leeway for cookies that are vital for site functionality, it makes sense to categorise your cookies and treat different categories differently. We suggest adopting the DMA’s categorisation:

“Cookies necessary for the provision of service: In this case, you may continue to use cookies but you should explain to consumers why you are using them. For example, tell consumers who use an online banking service that cookies are there for security purposes and that they cannot use the service without them.

Useful but intrusive cookies: These cookies are useful to your organisation but are particularly intrusive from the consumer’s point of view. An example of this type would be third-party cookies which track a user’s use of the internet as they move from website to website. You will need to get consent for the use of such cookies and ensure that website visitors are fully aware of how the cookie will work in simple terms which they can understand.

Helpful non-intrusive cookies: Cookies which fall into this category would include cookies which track anonymously how visitors move through your organisation’s web pages. You will need to get consent for the use of such cookies in your privacy policy.

Obsolete cookies: There is no point in asking for consumers’ consent to the use of cookies if they are irrelevant. The audit provides a good opportunity to remove the use of such cookies from your website and will ensure compliance with the requirement in the Data Protection Act 1998 that personal data should not be kept for longer than is necessary.”

The ICO advice builds on this, and makes clear that cookies should be obsessed for how intrusive they are, and suggests one way to do this is to imagine them on a sliding scale – including 3rd party cookies.

3: Update Privacy Policies and Site Terms and Conditions

We strongly suggest brands add text to the existing privacy policy pages linked to from the site footer, or via a new footer link “Cookies” depending on in-house style. This should cover the different types of cookie as categorised above and clearly specify what they are used for and link to any 3^rd party information as relevant- the ICO documents states: “You must think also about giving people more details about what you do – perhaps a list of cookies used with a description of how they work – so that users can make an informed choose about what they will allow.” Remember that you should also provide links to any opt-out mechanisms that exist, too.

4. Decide how to tell consumers – and plan site changes

The ICO have (finally) been clear – brands need to tell consumers that they are using cookies and alert them to any update to Privacy Policies or site Terms and Conditions after the 25^th of May, including linking to information about the policies of third party cookies.

The ICO document discusses two options for informing consumers:

Splash pages or pop-ups which the ICO discount as possibly irritating, and they seem to miss that many browsers block most pop-ups as standard, anyway.

Text in the footer or header which highlights/scrolls when a cookie needs to be set – this could be a good option, or incredibly ugly – and the ICO seem to have missed that most consumers rarely see the footer of a site, as it’s below the fold.

Sites also need to make clear if any site functionality drops a cookie – e.g. ticking a “remember me” box when logging in.

This area is challenging – brands will need to alert consumers without scaring them, or ruining the aesthetic of their websites. No doubt we’ll see some good and some terrible attempts at this in the comings weeks; our initial suggestions are:

Consider a header “accordion”

This is something Amazon already do well – if you visit the.com site from the UK, a content “accordion” suggests you visit the .co.uk; Yahoo! do the same. It’s not hard to imagine these adapted to state something like: “This website uses cookies; under new EU law, we need your consent to use them – please click here” linked to the relevant information / opt out to gain consent (or not). Obviously this needs legal sign-off; but the mechanism is worth considering.

This could be set to only appear on first visit to the site after the 25^th (using a cookie, ironically) and then re-enabled for subsequent changes. This of course only applies if the user doesn’t need to give consent on every visit – but if that becomes requried, the industry is going to have wider issues to worry about, anyway.

The current usage of this technology by Amazon and Yahoo! is shown below:

Add text to functionality options

Where ever a site user takes action (click, ticks a box etc.) and enables site functionality that drops a cookie, add text telling them – e.g. “By ticking “remember me” you will set a cookie on your computer. Read more here” (linked to Ts and Cs/Privacy Policy as relevant). This of couse won’t be the easiest thing to integrate into site designs – another option might be a small piece of text “Uses Cookies – Hover for Info” which uses a hover-over tool tip to provide info and a link.

4: Monitor the Press

This will be the most important thing after the 25^th May – as further DCMS/ICO guidelines may be published and the attempts to enhance browser functionality succeed or fail, brands will need to adjust their cookie usage / site text accordingly.

We’ll post further posts and update this one as relevant.

UPDATE: we’ve posted a revised set of steps following the ICO’s guidance notes here – please read these instead.

In part one we outlined the EU Directive affecting cookies and some of the controversy and interpretations surrounding it; below we discuss the practical steps we suggest brands should take before the 25th May, drawn from our own reading and briefing notes from the IAB UK, DMA, IPA and other sources:

1: Audit your cookies and tags

The first step is the obvious one – make sure you know which cookies your site drops across all of its pages and as a result of on-page functionality being used. We suggest you review the tracking tags on site, too – always a useful housekeeping exercise and a perfect opportunity to remove any that are no longer required, and to consider a tag carrier solution to make this process easier in future.

We can assist Steak clients with this and suggest a tag carrier and attribution solution that we believe is significantly more advanced that the current market leader – and is being  developed with privacy issues in mind. Please email your contact for more info.

It’s worth noting that redundant tags add to page load speeds – something Google started paying more attention to a few years ago – and slower loading pages will always impact negatively upon conversion rates.

2: Categorise your cookies and tags

As the Directive allows greater leeway for cookies that are vital for site functionality, it makes sense to categorise your cookies and treat different categories differently. We suggest adopting the DMA’s categorisation:

“Cookies necessary for the provision of service: In this case, you may continue to use cookies but you should explain to consumers why you are using them. For example, tell consumers who use an online banking service that cookies are there for security purposes and that they cannot use the service without them.

Useful but intrusive cookies: These cookies are useful to your organisation but are particularly intrusive from the consumer’s point of view. An example of this type would be third-party cookies which track a user’s use of the internet as they move from website to website. You will need to get consent for the use of such cookies and ensure that website visitors are fully aware of how the cookie will work in simple terms which they can understand.

Helpful non-intrusive cookies: Cookies which fall into this category would include cookies which track anonymously how visitors move through your organisation’s web pages. You will need to get consent for the use of such cookies in your privacy policy.

Obsolete cookies: There is no point in asking for consumers’ consent to the use of cookies if they are irrelevant. The audit provides a good opportunity to remove the use of such cookies from your website and will ensure compliance with the requirement in the Data Protection Act 1998 that personal data should not be kept for longer than is necessary.”

3: Update Privacy Policies and Consider Site Ts and Cs

Until the full DCMS guidelines are published (sometime after the 25th May – see part one), knowing exactly how the DCMS and ICO will require websites to gain consent for dropping cookies is impossible. At the very least, we strongly suggest brands add text to the existing privacy policy pages linked to from the site footer, or via a new footer link “Cookies” depending on in-house style. This should cover the different types of cookie as categorised above.

We also strongly suggest talking to in-house lawyers at this stage, but especially on the point of consent. It may be that site Terms and Conditions will become the place to request consent in the DCMS guidelines. The theory is that by using the site the visitor accepts the site Ts and Cs (a standard mechanism now) and the Ts and Cs can be amended to include giving consent as a result of using the site. That may be a change worth making sooner rather than later.

4: Monitor the Press

This will be the most important thing after the 25^th May – as detailed DCMS/ICO guidelines are published and the attempts to enhance browser functionality succeed or fail, brands will need to adjust their cookie usage / site text accordingly.

We’ll add further blog posts as this develops.

UPDATE 6/5: Some government guidelines might be published before the 25th according to some sources; however how much time brands will then have to act is unclear; we still suggest following the steps above.

In 2002 the EU passed the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications covering the “right to privacy in the electronic communication sector” and in 2009 issued a revised ePrivacy Directive as part of a wider piece of legislation comprising a total of five Directives – the full (bland) EU text can be found here.

Fast forward to 2011, and on May 25th the five Directives are required to become national law across the EU – including the section relating to cookies. This has led to a lot of press coverage in the mainstream and digital industry press, with dire predictions of the death of web analytics, digital marketing, behavioural marketing and even sophisticated websites themselves.

This is nonsense – here at Steak we want to be very clear about that. To borrow a phrase from a well-known British sitcom – “Don’t panic!”.

As noted by the IAB UK in their briefing note to members, the ICO unfortunately fuelled this atmosphere with a press release entitled “’UK businesses must wake up’ to new EU law on cookies, Information Commissioner warns” despite the body of their release acknowledging the work the IAB and other industry groups have been doing to work with the ICO to turn theory into practical guidelines for business – work that will continue past the 25^th of May.

Further confusion was created when The Head of the ICO used the phrase ”explicit consent” in a Radio 4 Today Show interview: the IAB have subsequently received confirmation from the ICO that he was wrong to use this language – brands do not need to start asking consumers explicitly every time a cookie is dropped on their device.

The 25^th is not D-Day for Cookies

The DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) have been quite frank: the technical guidelines that lay out how brands should actually implement the directive into practical steps on their websites will not be complete for the 25^th May.

In addition, the Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said: “I cannot bark at the industry at the moment because I have not got the regulations.”

He did however add “My message is that this is not your ‘get out of jail free’ card” and continued to state that complaints would be judged against what brands had done to prepare for the 25^th.

The reality is that the 25^th May is not D-Day for cookies: rather it’s a milestone in a longer process that will result in guidelines from the DCMS that brands will need to follow; but they are expected to take some steps beforehand. Nobody in government has clarified exactly what they are – brands have been left to make their own interpretations.

The Browser Will Be Key?

Something that was missed in some of the early coverage of the 25th May was the preamble to the Directive. The IAB Europe stated in November 2009 that:

“For cookies, the legislation’s preamble specifically says that the control settings in a web browser such as Firefox, Internet Explorer, Chrome, Opera or Safari are sufficient to comply with the consent requirement in the legislation.”

The implication the IAB Europe was drawing in 2009 was clear: consumers are consenting to cookies by enabling them in their browser (and have always been able to block them overall or for individual sites, although this is time consuming not easy for the non-technical). It should be noted that some law blogs have questioned this interpretation, as the preamble was originally a part of a draft of the Directive and was rejected; and preambles have in the past been given less legal importance than the actual Directives themselves.

Thinking around browser settings has advanced since 2009, with the ICO and DCMS “pursuing” enhanced browser settings which “which will give website visitors more information as to how the website uses cookies. This will also give people understandable choices regarding any cookies being placed on their computers” according to the UK DMA (Direct Marketing Association). The DCMS guidelines published on the 20^th of April support this approach – it’s important to note that, overall, consent via browser settings is the mechanism supported by the UK government.

No browser updates have been made that introduce easier-to-use functionality for cookie control, nor has any browser manufacturer clearly stated they will do so specifically because of the Directive for the 25^th of May. It remains to be seen if the aspirations of UK government bodies will become reality with the global companies involved; and other EU governments have taken harsher stances – as Lewis Silkin note, the UK may face EU legal action in future.

Not All Cookies Are Born Equal

One significant point to note is that the Directive allows for the use of cookies in a way that makes sites function on an opt-out basis. To quote the DMA again: “This will mean website owners will not need consent from the user to place cookies on their computers where the use of the cookies is strictly necessary for a service provided by the website owner at the request of the user. This will cover, for example, the use of cookies in shopping baskets on e-commerce websites and security cookies on online banking websites.”

So brands do not need to worry that they will need to significantly re-engineer their online functionality as a result of the Directive and subsequent DCMS guidelines.

Behavioural Advertising and Cookies

Behavioural advertising will attract a lot of attention with regards to cookies and the Directive – there’s been plenty of previous coverage around the privacy implications. The IAB and industry bodies have been working directly with Brussels on this, and the EU has broadly supported the industry’s approach, including the consumer education websites linked to at the bottom of this article as well as an easily recognisable Internet icon, privacy policy notices, a single consumer control page, and a self-regulatory compliance and enforcement mechanism. This approach is still under development.

In part two of this blog post, we layout the steps Steak and industry bodies suggest brands need to take before May 25^th. UPDATE 16/5: we’ve posted a revised set of steps here following the ICO’s publication of guidelines.

UPDATE 6/5: Some government guidelines might be published before the 25th according to some sources; however how much time brands will then have to act is unclear; we still suggest following the steps in our second blog post.

Useful Links

ICO: Confidentiality of Communications Guide (Cookies)

DMA Newsletter Guidance on Cookies

Lewis Silkin on the DCMS and Cookies

All About Cookies from the IAB

Your Online Choices: IAB Guide to Behavioural and Cookies for Consumers

So, another day, another Google announcement that shakes the foundations of social and search strategies. Or does it? Here are our initial – and I stress initial – thoughts on Google +1. Right now we’re focusing on the search side of this as that’s the initial thrust of Google’s announcement, and where most consumers will encounter this functionality first.

What is Google+1?

Simply put, it’s Google’s equivalent of the Facebook “like” button – a way of saying “I like this” or “I recommend this”. Of course, Google aren’t using the word “like” anywhere in their PR.

Consumers can click it in both paid and natural search results – for the former, advertisers have to add it as an option. It’s very important to note that consumers need to be signed in to a Google account (AdWords, Analytics, Gmail etc) to see the button and click it. We have to wonder how many consumers are aware they have a Google Account as a result of using one of Google’s products – it’s not something Google have historically promoted.

If you are wondering about your own Google Account at this point, see this page and login to see which products Google associates with your login – and edit your Google Profile. Yes, you have a Google Profile too. Which brings to me to where Google+1 “likes” appear.

Your Google Profile

If you have a Google Account, you have a Google profile. It might not be public, you might never have filled it in, but you do. You can check yours here https://profiles.google.com/

When a consumer clicks the +1 button, this recommendation is shown in their public Google profile. As shown by Mashable’s example :

Will this Impact Search Results?

Yes. Google have stated this will affect SEO/natural search rankings. So, if your brand gets lots of +1 clicks, it could boost your position in results as Google views your site as “recommended” and therefore of interest to it’s consumers. No guarantees, as ever with Google.

Of course, there will be companies who try to “game this”. We already seen a brand encourage retweets as part of a competition, for example, on Twitter. Brands and their agencies will need to decide what they can do to encourage these clicks without crossing the line – and of course, Google will continue to develop their algorithm to counter such efforts; no doubt a sudden flurry of +1 clicks will be seen as of less value that a continual steam of them that suggest genuine “recommendations”.

This also means every time you click the +1 button you are effectively working for Google, helping them improve their results.

Paid Search and +1

PPC advertisers can opt to include the button on their ads. UPDATE: Google tell us will be enabled for all PPC adverts if the searcher is logged in. Then, when logged in consumers can click it and their friends (as determined via Google’s Profile system) will see they did so, as show in these two images from Google, where “Brian Walker” clicked to recommend an ad.

Will this Change PPC Quality Score and Rankings?

No. Google have clearly stated that unlike natural search, this won’t be used at the present time to determine rankings etc. No surprise – there’s an even clearer financial gain to gaming this if it did impact QS and therefore CPCs.

UPDATE: Whilst it might not affect Quality Score, it could increase CTRs and therefore have a beneficial advantage in PPC.

Beyond Search

Like Facebook’s “Like” button, Google will offer a version of this for brands to put on their websites – so start putting real estate on your site aside now.

This is when the +1 button will really take off – consumers may not be logged in, ignore it or not know what it is in search results. Engagement rates on features like “block site” and earlier feedback mechanism in search haven’t been high. On the websites of brands they like, however, they are much more likely to click the +1 button.

Big Brands Gain the Most?

One of our initial reactions to this here is that big brands will gain the most. They have the brand awareness, brand search volumes and onsite traffic levels to attract the most clicks via SERPs and more significantly via their websites when they’ve integrated the button – just like with Facebook’s button.

We’ll blog more and speak to our clients direct as we assess this more, but for now, here’s the initial action points we recommend:

1.     Educate your colleagues – they’ll start seeing the button on English language searches soon (send them this blog’s URL!)

2.     Warn your developers you’ll need some screen space in the future – unfortunately, date TBC from Google on the onsite button at the time of writing

3.     Discuss this for PPC with your agency – will your brand be recommended? Will this improve your CTRs – or a competitors to your disadvantage? Will Google’s Profile network actually connects your consumers and their friends? The penetration of Google in the UK at 90%, for example, won’t translate to that sort of penetration into consumer’s friend network via Google Profiles (did you know you could have one until today?) You can opt out – see the end of this post.

4.     Discuss your SEO and Social integration strategy with Steak. This is something we’ve been doing with clients for some time – in fact, we first engaged in the Yahoo Answers for brands awareness and SEO reasons for a client back in 2008. We’ve written about SEO and Social regularly on Search Engine Watch too.

5.     Open a Google Profile, and try this out for yourself – that’s the best way to understand it further.

Conclusion

This will be big – because it’s from Google. The real growth in +1 clicks will be once it’s onsite and not just in SERPs; but for search it is now part of strategies going forward.

In social, this could be the way Google finally manages to attract consumers to it’s social platform – whatever that will look like beyond a Google Profile – but it’s early days. It’s not a Facebook or Twitter killer, that is for sure; if anything, Google will try to be the place your profiles merge and connect across social networks and their product network.

The question is: do you actually want to connect those worlds? We’ll leave that hanging in the air for now…

We’ll post more search and social thoughts as our analysis of this develops.

Sources:

Google’s +1 Announcement
Mashable’s original post

UPDATE: We’ve just had an email from Google UK – sign-up to find out when the onsite button is available here.

UPDATE 2: It’s not opt in for PPC; it’ll be turned on as standard (above edited accordingly). AdWords customers can request an opt out here.

By Duncan Parry, Search Engine Watch,  Mar 2, 2011

In January, Google introduced a useful addition to AdWords that potentially makes managing negative keywords across multiple campaigns a lot easier. Maybe it was because January is such a busy time of year, but it’s a feature that seems to have passed by many advertisers. Here’s a recap.

What are Negative Keyword Lists?

Simply put, a central place to store master list(s) of negative keywords and apply them to multiple campaigns. This is an improvement on the old way of doing this in AdWords, when you had to laboriously copy and paste negatives between campaigns – a process which can mean copying 1000s of words for a mature campaign that’s been built out over time.

Accessing Negative Keyword Lists

The lists are easy to access. In AdWords, simply click “Control panel and library” on the left of the screen, and select “Negative keyword lists”.

In the example above, you can see that I’ve already got a list in place of 127 keywords applied to 4 campaigns. You can create multiple lists and apply them to different combinations of campaigns. This is useful if you want to apply a master list of negatives to all campaigns, and another, separate list to only a select few – for example if your product range is limited in some regions, but not everywhere.

Creating new lists is easy – just click the “New negative keyword list button”, name the list and paste in the keywords. Of course you’ll need to spend some time consolidating existing lists across campaigns – more on that later – and then you’ll need to apply them to campaigns. That’s where I am afraid AdWords interface design provides something of an obstacle.

Applying Negative Lists to Campaigns

Using this feature, it feels like Google designed it without thinking through the workflow involved for existing campaigns – i.e. most of their customers. Once you have created lists, there’s no easy way to apply them to multiple campaigns. Instead, you have to go into every single campaign and then apply the lists(s) that are relevant to that campaign.

Here’s the process:

1. Click “All online campaigns” on the menu on the left of your screen
2. Click the campaign to apply the list to
3. Click the “Keywords” tab
4. Scroll to the bottom of this screen
5. Click “Negative Keywords”
6. On the right of the inflated lists that appear, click “Keyword Lists”
7. Click “Add”
8. Click “Add” next to the negative keyword list you want to apply
9. Repeat across multiple lists
10. Click “Save”

Unfortunately, you need to repeat these steps for every campaign – there’s no way at the time of writing to select multiple campaigns and apply the same list(s) to them all at once – which would have been a real time saver. There’s no way to apply them to multiple accounts within the same MCC, either, something that would help with enterprise level accounts like national retailers.

Negative Keyword List Deployment Steps

Interface gripes aside, negative keyword lists are a worthwhile addition to any AdWords campaign. Here’s some steps to follow to get the most out of them:

1)     Download your account via AdWords Editor;

2)     Sort the columns in Excel and delete all of the rows and columns with anything other that negative keywords and the keyword type in them;

3)     Use these to plan the lists you need – I’d suggest a “Whole Account” list of terms you’d never, ever want your ads to appear for, and then any more specific lists you need around those you have in AdGroups or only in some campaigns in the download;

4)     Re-arrange the negatives in the download to populate these lists and save them;

5)     Add any additional terms that spring to mind, or you can find via SQRs or keyword tools;

6)     Save the master list(s) and then start adding them via the procedure above;

7)     Update your campaign build out process to include applying these lists to any new campaigns in future.

Negative keyword lists will no doubt become a standard of AdWords campaign management – hopefully Google will improve the interface over time and add support via AdWords Editor and the API, too.

By Duncan Parry, Search Engine Watch,  Mar 2, 2011

Many agencies, publishers, and advertisers across Europe have been sent documents by the European Commission (EC) recently, requesting detailed information about the online advertising marketplace — and about search marketing and AdWords in particular.

This is part of an investigation into Google and antitrust. While a response isn’t mandatory, questioning from industry bodies has elicited a response that suggests the commission can, if it wants to, make it compulsory.

I’ve been critical of Google’s market dominance in the past and still firmly believe strong competition in every area of their business is good for the industry and for consumers. But while reading and answering the overlapping questions in the two documents my agency has received, I feel a growing unease that the bureaucrats who will ultimately pass judgment on Google may do more damage than good.

The questions in the documents fall into several broad categories:

• Define the digital services you provide and therefore the marketplace.
• The extent to which campaigns need to differ per country and to what extent that poses barriers.
• Scenarios around when ad spend would be switch away from horizontal PPC ads (i.e. AdWords) to other platforms or ad types.
• A surprising number of questions around how easy it is to port data between AdWords and other platforms, how easy Google make this and if it could be done “by a programmatic tool.”
• Questions about the AdWords API, legal agreements with Google and anyway Google tries to restrict the use of other platforms.
  It’s the questions about porting campaigns and the API that worry me. This isn’t one question but a series, probing for details of current processes, in-house and external tools, and the time and money involved — all asking if Google makes this difficult.

We all know that a copy and paste of a campaign from Google into adCenter or any other ad platform won’t bring the best results — the systems have different campaign options, treat search strings and match types differently, have different consumer user bases, etc.

I wouldn’t want to use a “programmatic tool” to dump campaigns into other system from AdWords.

Do I want to download them, open them, edit them to fit each platform and then quickly upload them? Yes. We all know how to use the various search engine editors and Excel today.

This feels like a line of inquiry a competing ad platform would push hardest — we all know there’s been lobbying. I’m not accusing any one company and I trust the EC has processes in place to prevent bias. I’m just wondering aloud if this is the most useful direction for the commission to proceed in.

What worries me is this is exactly the sort of narrow-minded approach to the market that could lead to a ruling that’s bad for PPC — at an extreme, ordering Google to add a “port” button to copy campaigns to adCenter or other systems — with no reference to the poor performance that may follow. Knowing how to get the best out of different ad platforms is a skill in itself.

Hopefully the detailed answers being written by search experts will steer the commission toward more genuine areas of concern, such as Google’s practice of contacting big advertisers directly without telling their agencies (I saw an example of this the other day, unsolicited by the client) or locking-off top AdWords slots for its own products — and that’s before we talk about DoubleClick or their market share as a whole.

Martin Sorrell never said a truer word when he described Google as a “frenemy.”

This topic will be a slow burning one in Europe — and in all likelihood, by the time the bureaucratic wheels have finished turning, the marketplace will have changed again, anyway.

By Duncan Parry, Search Engine Watch,  Feb 2, 2011

Following its successful rollout in North America, Microsoft and Yahoo are focusing on rolling out the Search Alliance in Europe, starting with natural search results on Yahoo UK.

This move is largely welcome. With a UK market share of less than 10 percent for Yahoo and MSN, it makes more sense to manage campaigns on one interface. Right now, Yahoo staff are being trained on adCenter in preparation for moving their clients’ campaigns over.

Filling in my agency’s response to the European investigation into Google, I had to list a number of features of the AdWords platform. We all know the depth and breadth of development of AdWords outpaced Yahoo (and Overture) and comparative newcomer Microsoft a long time ago.

But where are the beta trials from Redmond? Where are the new initiatives, the new ideas from engineers that will differentiate the adCenter platform from AdWords, raise the revenue per search Microsoft receives, and grow loyalty with advertisers?

Try as I might, I can’t remember the last “big” change or enhancement on adCenter since Microsoft launched a desktop tool similar to AdWords Editor.

Parallel Races

It’s easy to sit outside a company and poke holes at their strategy. Microsoft has lots of intelligent, hard-working people who are pushing their search efforts forward — sometimes despite other people internally, I suspect.

They’ve built a search engine, created a PPC platform, and started to take the fight to Google (but let’s be honest, Yahoo’s been the main loser and Ask was already fading away).

As Bing introduced new features and received attention, Google seemed to wake out of a slumber and started rolling out new features in search results, continued its relentless development of AdWords and, with increasing speed, the development of its display business through DoubleClick.

So the foundations are firmly in place from Microsoft. They’re gaining traffic from their Yahoo deal and their own activities. Bing keeps adding new features.

But where’s the innovation in adCenter? I’m not talking blog posts, research reports, or tools around-the-edge (which they are often good at); I’m talking hardcore, at-the-center innovation that every advertiser, big or small, will be able to use. Things like Google’s sitelinks — self-service, enhancing search results and, crucially from a revenue per search basis, raising CTRs (and often ROI for advertisers — leading to increased budgets).

Several races are happening in parallel here. Market share is one, but there are others (e.g., innovation in PPC, further exploiting the connection between display and search).

Microsoft and Yahoo have strong experience in display and have done some work in this area — but Google is catching up, fast. They may not have the premium level display inventory Yahoo and Microsoft have access to, but with remarketing in AdWords Google has made the sort of retargeting once considered the preserve of the most well-funded advertisers available to all.

Search marketers are adopting this tactic in droves — but only on Google’s platform or through third parties — not adCenter.

What Could Microsoft Do?

So, if I think Microsoft should be innovating more in PPC, what would I suggest? The obvious example, sitelinks, bears some thinking about.

Sitelinks undoubtedly offer convenient ways for site owners to channel consumers into the right section of a site following a one-word brand search or ambiguous generic. The format and mechanics could be different — sitelinks can be improved in terms of reporting data and control over which links are shown.

Is this copying an idea and developing it further? Yes. After all, Google wasn’t the first PPC engine — they took the idea and added engineering rocket fuel.

Several other areas spring to mind — things Google is already doing, but not always that well: local information in PPC ads, incorporating feeds to enhance PPC ads (more control of which products display for which searches would be a start), and the ability to buy non-premium display inventory via adCenter for retargeting.

There are probably much better ideas out there, not to mention the ones bubbling away in the heads of engineers at Microsoft.

Do I feel Microsoft is distracted by the challenge of onboarding an increased volume of traffic, new advertisers, and training Yahoo!’s staff? Yes.

Do I hope we’ll see a burst of innovation on adCenter afterward? Yes.

But underlying concern is it’ll be too late — Google will have moved ahead in all these races, and there will be new ones opening up that adCenter won’t be equipped to enter. That will be bad for all of us in search — especially those of us in a market where Google already dominates 90 percent of searches.

I recently blogged about UK browser marketshares, and the gains Chrome and Safari have seen at the expense of more established browsers. The trend is repeated for mobile browsers in the UK, too – as smartphones penetrate futher into the market, so the “old school” incumbents are seeing their browser marketshare fall.

It’s important to note here that the fall in marketshare isn’t just about software – it often reflects the decline of a hardware manufacturer’s fortunes, too – Nokia, especially.

The obvious winner is Android – at the expense of Nokia, Opera and others. The second winner is BlackBerry – who, over the last few years, has  seen the smartphone challenge coming and diversified to attract non-business users. I’ve seen anecdotal evidence of this, with teenage relatives actively seeking a BlackBerry as their next mobile – not an iPhone or Android. A big part of this story is the BlackBerry IM software, which has created a “hidden” network of teenagers using its software to chat to each other when on the move, regardless of FaceBook, Microsoft Messenger etc.

Anybody designing a mobile site or app take note – if your strategy is iPhone, iPhone, iPhone, you’re potentially missing out on 70% of the mobile market – and the proportion of that 70% which is smartphone-based is growing quickly. If you are targeting teenagers and have ignored the BlackBerry family of devices, it’s time to have a re-think, too.

Raw data source: StatCounter.com

Browser marketshares are important to keep an eye on – site designs and booking flows often behave slightly differently across browser versions and computing platforms, directly affecting conversion rates and the success of digital campaigns.

Site designs and functionality need to adjust as browsers grab significant marketshare – and as well as Chrome there are mobile and tablet variations to take into account, with touchscreens a new form of input to design for. Many browsers also have a built in search box*; so a change of partnership can shift the marketshares of search engines by a few percentage points or more.

So what are the current UK browser marketshares?

The big change? Google’s Chrome has risen from 6.14% in December 2009 to 16.52% of marketshare in December 2010, following an ad campaign across railways stations, print and other online and offline mediums by the search giant. Meanwhile, FireFox, IE, Opera and “other” browsers have lost marketshare – although a second notable winner is Apple’s Safari (5.45% to 7.55%).

So if your website hasn’t been tested with Chrome, or you know your booking process isn’t as smooth as it could be outside of FireFox and IE, now is the time to revisit the browsers you actively support – or risk losing revenue.

Raw data source: StatCounter.com

* Note: many consumers search via their address bar, a toolbar or via the engines homepages, so the impact of change here is limited.

By Duncan Parry, Search Engine Watch,  Nov 19, 2010

The search industry never stops. From AltaVista to Google, and GoToast to Search Ignite, the fortunes of companies and technologies evolve over time.

I was reminded of this recently when training new hires. They’d never head of names like AltaVista, Excite, Lycos, etc. — companies that defined the search space less than 10 years ago.

So, how do you keep up to date?

Ignore the Noise

It’s important to recognize that there are many, many blogs and articles published about search every day — and many more “experts” on forums and Twitter and in Facebook and LinkedIn groups.

You can ignore most of them. The ability of the search industry to report on, discuss, analyze, argue about, and regurgitate a fact until it has been distorted out of all proportion and attained myth-like status is legendary. There’s a lot of noise — so you need to spend your limited time on sites that are credible and, most importantly, correct.

It’s also important to note that the search engines are no longer search companies — they offer much broader product lines; so you will need to keep up to date on developments in all their products, too, as search is often integrated into them (and paid search revenues pay for them).

Select an RSS Reader

I can’t think of an industry news site that doesn’t have an RSS feed — so choosing a good reader is crucial. There are many available. I use Google Reader to collate and organize feeds by topic in folders as it’s tied to my Google login and easy to use on any computer, iPad, or mobile.

I often use Feedly linked to Google Reader as it offers a slicker interface that feels closer to a magazine. Another bonus of Google Reader is that you can add any URL to it — not just RSS feeds — and Reader will monitor the page for changes and present them as if a feed has updated.

Many sites offer several feeds — follow those most relevant to your area of work and interests; it’s easy to overload yourself with feeds and find you have more than 100 articles to wade through every morning. Pretty soon you’ll find you’re too busy to bother, and end up reading nothing.

Keep an Eye on the Mainstream Press

Sometimes announcements by the search engines receive mainstream coverage — or a story breaks about a negative issue, like the recent Google Street View privacy coverage. Add the technology sections of mainstream sites like the New York Times, USA Today, BBC News, etc., to your reader to ensure you know the stories your clients (and their bosses) are reading over their breakfast.

Digital Overall

To keep any eye on the wider industry I follow a few key sites — Mashable, The Next Web, Robert Scoble, John Battelle’s Search Blog, and Econsultancy, to name a few.

The Search Stalwarts

There are a few search-focused sites that are must-reads. Search Engine Watch and Search Engine Land are the two heavyweights; I receive their newsletters every morning as well as follow their feeds; they provide a summary of the most important search news and topics. Search Engine Roundtable is also important and often have details of new Google tests or rumors with some basis to them as reported on other sites or forums.

There are of course many other digital industry and search sites — the above sites link to good sources as they cover stories, helping you find other sources.

Don’t Forget To Cull

One last piece of advice: don’t forget to delete feeds. Over time, sites change editor, or their focus shifts or their writing declines in quality. So when a site seems to publish nothing of interest, delete it — your time is precious.