Brokerblogger

Why Is My Focus On the 1st Search Engine Results Page?

I just wrote 4 posts on some trends that are happening on the 1st SERP combined with a growing number of B2C and B2B vertical aggregator web sites that are trying to make money by adding value (along with adding more clicks) to relevant online search results.  The 5th post of mine that could be included in these same trends entitled "Is The Search Engine User & Consumer Really King?" tells of Google's recently increased number of "Sponsored Links" at the top of the "Golden Triangle" on that PRIME REAL ESTATE of the 1st SERP.

The noted web site usability expert Jakob Nielsen's "Search: Visible and Simple" has a section entitled "First Results Page Is Golden".  An old Excite (search engine) Study said that 50.5 % of Searchers Never Look Past the First Results Page!  Google's own "Technology Overview" on their "Corporate Information" page says "By combining overall importance and query-specific relevance, Google is able to put the most relevant and reliable results first."

"Vertical Creep" Negates Vertical Aggregator Creep Solution?

Like the "Dueling Reporters" (click to see animated image) compete with each other to be noticed, the "natural organic" SERP listings ("editorial" search results that are monetarily non-biased for ranking purposes vs. paid listings), and the vertical search portal organic SERP listings (same as "natural organic" listings, but primarily found within the "vertical search tabs" on top or near the main "web" search window) compete with one another for your attention.

The vertical organic listings have the advantage of being found on top of the regular organic listings (as in this "George Bush" SERP, which has three "News" tab results).  This is an example of Vertical Creep.  This means that if the Vertical Aggregator Creep Solution were to be employed, that possibly many of those same vertical aggregator web sites would show up at the top of the 1st SERP anyway!  Vertical Creep is happening more and more on Google and many other search engines, and Yahoo promotes them as "Shortcuts" to relevancy.

Vertical Aggregator Creep Solution

The "SAVE" chorus line (click on) is now dancing! ("S"= Search Engines, "A"= Advertisers, "V"= Vendors, and "E"= End Users).  The reason is Mary Ann Wells's (Web-Kare.com) suggested solution to vertical creep of what she calls "directories".

Solution:  On 5/19/04 M.A. Wells said "...I feel that they should be given their own category at Google and Yahoo like 'news', but their category could be 'Directories' (vs. "Directory" which Google already has - I suggest using "Buyer Guide Directories").  When I want to find a directory of anything, I usually include that word 'directory' in my listing (I think Mary Ann means "search terms").  When I want to find a product or service I don't expect to see directories coming up."  Therefore, there would be a new "vertical portal search tab" like Images, Groups, News, Froogle, Local, etc..

I agree!  I want a choice, depending upon what stage in the buying cycle I am in (product research or price comparison shopping).  When it is "digital cameras" I'm searching for, I don't want 8 out of 10 Google Results on the first SERP to be "review-buyer guide" sites. Only powershot.com & shortcourses.com had no "buyer's guides", although some listings were a "combo".

"The Dark Side" Of Vertical Aggregator Creep

The chorus line of vertical aggregators below is still jumping for joy (click to see), because all the marketers (clients of SEO consultants) who want their individual web sites to be on that first SERP can't easily and inexpensively compete with them.  Why, because most vertical aggregator web sites have large amounts of quality content, many inbound high quality links, and deep pockets of owners who continuously update and add quality content.  These things enable them to block out most of the individual company web sites from the "organic top 10" listings on the 1st SERP.

"Vertical Aggregator Creep" to me, many SEO's, and many B2B & B2C online marketers, is more annoying than "Ad Creep".  I have read in forums where an SEO said that their clients have to compete in both organic and PPC arenas for good ranking.  In fact, these "unfair advantage" competitors with huge content & huge financial resources, that are sometimes known as directory aggregators, cause the SEO to spend more time, and be more aggressive (maybe even ""Black Hat SEO") in their SEO tactics.  These extra costs are passed on to the client who is also forced to invest in PPC just to get on the first SERP.

Vertical Aggregator Creep

Since the cost of entry into the online vertical aggregator business is low compared to offline, more and more vertical aggregator web sites are appearing ("creeping up") at the TOP of the SERP's.  Click on the "BUSINESS" chorus line animated image to see their happy dance. 

Have you noticed that when you do a search for a product or service like "golf courses in Connecticut", Google gives you only 2 specific golf course sites, and 8 vertical aggregator-information sites on the first page (as of 9/30/05)?  Now, some online search users may like this, especially if they don't have a specific golf course in mind.  However, some aggregator sites don't allow direct links to their listing results at all, or its a paid privilege.  On the SERP I just mentioned is #3 = WorldGolf.com, which shows Richter Park Golf Course for Danbury, CT. with a link to "Course Comments", but none to the actual course web site.  However Richter Park G.C. does have a web site with much more information (I didn't link to it as you can't "back-button" to come back here!).  TheGolfCourses.net at SERP #5 shows Richter Park for Danbury with a link to their own limited information vs. the actual web site"s complete information.

Overstating Agency Fees = Lessons Learned

I promise not to keep using these "smileys", but I couldn't help be sad after reading Shona Seifert's (a former Olgivy & Mather executive) "Proposed Code of Ethics For the Advertising Industry".  I got the distinct feeling that the main reason she wrote it was because she got caught (jail time + $125,000) and the judge ordered her to do it.

She may be truly sorry now and mean every word in it, but where were all those awarenesses and self-convictions before she got convicted by the law?  The first part of it seemed to me to try to lessen her culpability by blaming the entire "system" of large corporations and old sloppy practices.  The middle has many good ethical suggestions.  She even quotes Jack Welch:  "We must rely on the integrity of our people as our first line of defense.", and prefaces that by saying "Without leaders championing the values, ambiguity is created" (smacks of finger pointing to me!). Near the end she says "New laws may be introduced to regulate the advertising industry.  Self-regulation is always better than external imposition of rules."  Does she mean the FTC may step in at some point"?

Pay For Actions = Performance

My "partnering" type of compensation/pricing option for SEO services is based on a principle that I have made a living by, and believe in.  In the About biography section of this blog there is a link to the results of my six hour "The Personnel Labs" personality test that I took a while ago.  At the very end are "Comments:" on my "straight commission" beliefs.  For most of my business life I got paid on results only (Pay For Performance), and not on efforts (Pay For Time/Perceived Talent).  But, this does not work with everything that is sold, as is the case with attorney contingency fees in certain kinds of law.  In my case, though, I "partnered" with the publishing company that my company was contracted to, and certainly shared some of the risk to get a fair share of the reward.