RKG Logo 434-978-4300

It is nice to chat with NYT’s Bob Tedeschi about online marketing. Nicer still when it ends up in print. And even nicer when it happens on your birthday! smiley

Assorted additional thoughts on Google’s Search-Within-The-Site (SWTS):

  • From the usability perspective, SWTS is a big help for smaller sites with weak on-site search.
  • For medium to large sites, Google’s SWTS usually provides poorer serps than the retailer’s own. Compare piggybank at Amazon versus piggybank on Amazon via Google (hat-tip Jim at TechCrunch, comment 31). new york times alan rimm-kaufman
  • Why? Because smart retailers put considerable effort into on-site search, tuning results for relevance, inventory, margin, what have you. Google SWTS is general, and so isn’t tuned. SWTS is also stale (by hours or days) with respect to SKU inventory.
  • From the PPC angle, the dollars and clicks involved when retailer “Y” steals a click from a user searching-within-the-site for retailer “X” is small, and likely offset by the reverse scenario. As relates to paid search, SWTS is a tempest in a teapot.
  • Prediction: this issue will blow over quickly as Google will let site owners opt-out of SWTS via Webmaster Central.
  • Once Google permits SWTS opt-out, small retailers can stay in, large retailers can leave, and everyone ends up better than before. All good.
  • Mysterious: Tedeschi quotes an unnamed Google spokesperson who indicates that site owners who opt-out of SWTS “may not be able to reverse their decision.” That is really strange — what marketing or IT constraint would make this decision irreversible?
  • I’d suggest the intensity of advertisers’ negative responses to SWTS is more an indication of growing unease with Mountain View’s dominance, rather than on the importance of SWTS.
  • John Battelle writing about universal search last week made a great point, relevant here too: “Google’s brand promise - to be neutral, to be above monetary interest - is in conflict with, well, the rest of Google’s brand promise, to be a superstar stock, to grow faster than any company in the history of the world.”
  • We at RKG often discuss the role of brand in PPC. There’s a different brand angle here, a broader, more subtle, somewhat ominous angle. SWTS highlights how the growing power of search engines reduces the influence of brands. Your website is your brand online. Natural search runs your brand through a shredder. Experiencing a site page-wise on a search engine results page is a situation where the parts are far less than the whole.

Link: Google To Vegetarians: Eat The Damn Hamburger

If you like this post, consider subscribing to our RSS feed. You can also have new posts sent to you via email.


Related Posts

Comments

  1. M.Marshall, March 25, 2008:

    > Prediction: this issue will blow over quickly as Google will let site owners opt-out of SWTS via Webmaster Central.
    Can’t wait for this! Do you have approximate predictions when this will at last happen?

  2. Alan Rimm-Kaufman, March 25, 2008:

    Wild guess based on zero data: w/in 30 days.

  3. George Michie, March 25, 2008:

    In the category of internal disagreements…:-)

    This might be a big deal if there is no opt out.

    For well-established brands, often 50% of their PPC sales come after clicks on brand ads. If half of the likely buyers are subjected to a tasty alternative that leads to a bunch of non-brand ads from the same company and its competitors the potential for spending PPC $ on what should have been cheap brand ads or organic links is real. The potential for skewing non-brand PPC results by pouring in hot-to-buy brand traffic into non-brand ad results and encourage over-bidding is also real.

Your Comment

Trackback

http://www.rimmkaufman.com/rkgblog/2008/03/24/google-search-within-site/trackback/

Email Updates

Categories

Recent Comments

  • Curtis: Great study George! Along the same lines, I’m trying to find a study about which search engines have the highest conversion ratios....
  • registry cleaner: Thank you. I found your division of total time spent on priorities very useful!thanks again
  • George Michie: Ophir, thank you for your marvelous comment. I agree with you. Brand building is an important element of marketing, and a very...
  • Ophir: Hi George, Interesting post, very intereting. I find myself struggling with this issue day in day out and I mostly agreee with your...
  • Kevin Hillstrom: Oh, you are on to something! I can promise you that.
  • George Michie: I am eager to see what you’re thinking on the topic, Kevin. Some of our early early data scratchings suggest that we may be...
  • Kevin Hillstrom: This will teach me to not schedule posts … I have a half-dozen similar posts coming in the next week!!
  • TAMMY LANGWORTHY: I WISH TO CANCEL MY FUN FAMILY REWARDS AS I DON’T USE IT VERY MUCH. THANK YOU TAMMY LANGWORTHY
  • George Michie: Thanks Dave, it is a hot topic for good reason. I’ve had some interesting conversations with Kevin Hillstrom about his...
  • Mark Ballard: I certainly don’t mean to discourage advertising with Yahoo at all as there’s plenty of value to be had there. Healthy...
  • Nathan L.: I have thought about advertising on Yahoo! for some time, but news like this makes me want to just stick with Google. Good useful...
  • Dave 2.0: George, thanks for the callout on the survey. I’m VERY interested in the topic.
  • Nancy Maiewski: Another charge on my J.C.Penney statement for $9.95 for Family Fun Rewards! This isn’t the first time I have opened my bill...
  • George Michie: David, I’m sure Shop.org will make the results available to participants. We’re talking about presenting them at the...
  • David: It’s not clear from the survey whether participants get a free copy of the results. Do you know?

Blog Stats

  • Posts: 938
  • Words: 441,342
  • Comments: 2,755

Administration