Archive for the ‘Google Maps’ Category

Local Search Summit Wrap-Up

Monday, August 17th, 2009

The inaugural Local Search Summit_took place last Thursday in San Jose and was jam packed with top notch speakers and attended by the top companies in the local search industry. With representatives from both Search Engines and the one Decision Engine :) The day also included a much anticipated white list program for Google Maps bulk upload which you can read about here. Here is a wrap-up of all the sessions and important notes.

Keynote with Google TV’s Steve Stukenborg

The Summit got off to a roaring start with Steve Stukenborg’s dynamic presentation about Google TV.  While not directly applicable to Local, it was an entertaining look into one of Google’s newer product offerings.

Google is essentially trying to bring a “Googly” mindset of trackability into a medium that has to-date been largely untrackable.  Through their partnership with the Dish Network and incoming data from viewers’ set-top ID boxes, they’re able to charge advertisers on an Adwords-style CPM auction model.  TV’s increasing fragmentation (compare American Idol’s 25% share today with the Cosby Show’s 49% market share in the 80’s) means that it’s harder and harder to reach large audiences, but easier and easier to target exactly the demographic you’re looking for.  Time for new ads to go live and reporting on reach and audience is typically right around 24 hours, and integration with Google’s web Analytics appeared almost automatic.

I was disappointed to learn that despite Google’s ability to use set-top ID numbers for tracking purposes, it is not possible for SMB’s (or even national franchise-model companies) to geo-target campaigns.  It would seem easy to parse out geo-targeted content to those markets in which advertisers were bidding, and back-filling “empty” markets with national content.  But I readily admit that I don’t understand the technical side of TV distribution one bit!

Local Search Ranking Factors

Localeze’s Gib Olander and I presented the key points to consider when optimizing for Local Search.  Of particular importance (at least in my opinion) is the need to shift one’s mindset from optimizing a website to optimizing a location.

Gib did a terrific job of explaining the two main modes of Local search – those of REcovery and DIScovery.  45% of all Local searches fall into the former category, where people know the business they’re looking for, and are just trying to find “NAP” (Name, Address, Phone) details.  Thus it’s absolutely critical to make sure this basic footprint is accurate across as many search engines as possible.  Tieing back into my own presentation, doing so will also ensure that these additional listings get picked up as citations by Google Maps.

These citations are one of the most important ranking factors and will help immensely with the 55% of searches involving DIScovery—where searchers are looking for a particular type of business but don’t have one particular company in mind. Properly categorizing your business and adding keywords or tags for a richer profile (pet-friendly, happy hours, wi-fi, etc.) will help your business show up for longer-tail searches around those phrases.

In the Q&A, an audience member raised a question about the use of keywords in business title, which was rated one of the most influential ranking factors by the panel of experts.  I got the chance to ensure that people understood including a descriptive keyword in your business title was a best-practice across ALL listings (including offline occurrences like dba’s), not just at the Local Business Center.  Gib correctly speculated that the reason keywords-in-business-title is such an effective ranking tactic is that the Local search engines don’t currently have enough rich information to rely on for the vast majority of listings, a situation that Localeze (and other major data providers) are trying to improve.

What Kind of Online Products Do SMB’s Need?

Unfortunately, I was answering questions related to my presentation one-on-one out in the hallway for much of this session, but I did get to witness a highly-entertaining interchange between Todd Johnson of eLocalListing and Ben Saren of Citysquares.

Moderator Greg Sterling asked these two panelists to role-play a typical sales call to an SMB.  Ben accurately portrayed some of the difficulties in reaching the SMB owner (lack of understanding of the internet, lack of time to discuss marketing, and reliance on a friend or family member for everything web-related).  Todd demonstrated eLocal’s typical strategy of a request for help with servicing search clients and repeated calls and follow-ups to try to bring the SMB up-to-speed with available internet product offerings.

All the panelists rightly asserted the typical SMB’s lack of interest in the process or even the results of optimizing (i.e. rankings or trackable emails) and pure focus on how much additional business am I getting as the only metric that truly matters.

Pay-per-call was briefly discussed with a representative from Marchex whose name I didn’t catch…my own two cents (as well as Gib’s, stated during our Q&A) is that call-tracking local phone numbers have a negative impact on the consistency of one’s listing footprint across the web.  In my personal opinion, call-tracking should be done at the offline level during or after the phone conversations themselves.

Q&A With Google Maps and Bing

Jen Chin of Google Maps and Kevin Hagwell of Bing Local were on the hotseat for this session.  Moderator Jason Calacanis did an admirable job at trying to tease out the mindsets of two of the three biggest players in Local Search.

Bing seems to see a Local profile more like a property, and will likely be taking steps to make their profiles indexable and more static than they are currently (closer to Yahoo’s model).  Google clearly sees Local profiles more as search results and as such, they have no intent to static-ize them any time soon.

With respect to mapspam, Jen reiterated Google’s abiding faith in its community members to police bad results, mark closed businesses as closed, and the like…feeling that Google users will be “highly motivated” to fix what’s wrong. It should be said that those of us in the Local Search community typically have far less faith in this strategy than Mountain View seems to.

And with respect to data feeds and trust, Kevin posed a preliminary indicator of Bing’s mindset in this session and expanded on it during the Q&A.  He feels that Local data from any source will always have flaws in certain places; even business owners mis-type their addresses or phone numbers on occasion.  There will always be a need for Local search engines to attempt to cluster and merge business data in order to present a “most likely to be accurate” result for a particular business. While Bing would like to move towards a trusted-bulk-upload feature (which Google announced later in the conference) they’re not there right now.

Using Facebook and Twitter to Drive Local Leads

Sadly, I was answering emails for much of this session and only had my ears halfway open…

Will Scott mentioned some excellent tools for finding Local followers on Twitter—a popular question in some of SES’ small business sessions on Wednesday.  WeFollow and Twellowhood were two mentioned that I’d seen before.

He also emphasized his concept of “Attention Deficit Twitter Disorder” and the need to repeat your message at various times of the day to ensure that you reach all of your followers, most of whom are probably checking-in and checking-out of Twitter frequently.  (I guess only total geeks like us are on throughout the day!)

I didn’t necessarily agree with some of Will’s recommendations for auto-tweeting and auto-following, but his full slides on Using Twitter for Local are available on his website.

As far as tracking, one of Will’s particularly interesting insights was to use Lo.ly rather than Bit.ly for tracking, due to Lo.ly’s map overlay of where people are clicking in addition to what they are clicking on.

LBS and Mobile: What to Realistically Expect

Mike Boland of The Kelsey Group led off this session with what I found a pretty surprising stat: there are 63 million mobile web users in the U.S.  That is a HUGE audience, and given the natural affinity between Mobile and Local search, we Local Search practitioners are in a great place going forward. The difficulty will lie in the fact that search volume may not be high for obscure categories or obscure locations.

Greg Sterling’s assertion that 1/3 of all Google Japan searches come from mobile devices only suggests further where we’re headed.

Sanjeev Agrawal of Aloqa added an interesting dynamic to The Summit with his conception of Local Search as not necessarily being “pull” based (i.e. it might not involve search at all).  In Aloqa’s mind, “smart” phones should actually be smart.  They should be displaying opt-in content like specials, points of interest, friends, etc. at all times.  Location, time, and social context are more important for mobile ad serving than is text or perhaps even intent-based content.

Q&A with Yelp’s Jeremy Stoppelman

Kudos to Jeremy Stoppelman for attending what seemed like his first search engine conference.  He shared some interesting insights into Yelp’s founding mindset and where they might be headed.

  • Yelp now has over 7 million reviews and 25 million unique visitors per month.  Their traffic is a “testimonial to the model of User Generated Content.”
  • They’re in 28 cities and now several countries.
  • Yelp’s “secret sauce” so far has been to focus on specific communities and to build a core group of evangelists (the Yelp Elite Squad) for which they throw parties and encourage offline interaction. The highly-successful Portland Community Manager was recently shipped to London to help seed the community there.
  • Stoppelman’s impetus for starting Yelp came from his difficulty in finding a reliable doctor using the extant search engines in 2004.
  • Yelp does its best to keep its algorithm opaque.  The obvious factors are proximity, rating, and volume of reviews.  There’s no set number that “tips” a profile into popular status but Yelp does look at rating trends.
  • Yelp isn’t really worried about Google and Yahoo stepping on its toes…Stoppelman feels that Yelp will always be able to provide a deeper level of engagement for users (echoing Google’s mindset that its own results are just that: search results, rather than deep business profiles).
  • In five years, Stoppelman hopes that Yelp is “the premier brand in Local Search.”  At this point, Yelp has no plans to enter the much-hyped arena of HyperLocal News.

Q&A on Local Search: Where Are We Today?

Rather than duplicate content, I’d prefer to direct readers to the semi-live summary I wrote of this session on Thursday evening.

Kudos to Steve Espinosa & his partners for a truly phenomenal day.  The level of networking and intelligence of the panelists throughout the day was exceptional; LSS alone made the entire SES conference worth attending, in my view.

Google Verified Bulk Upload Goes Live

Friday, August 14th, 2009

If you have followed the any of the local blogs such as this one along with Mike Blumenthal’s, David Mihm’s , and many others;  you know that ever since Google has increased the amount of information required for listings to become verified,  it has come with some consequences. The public has in fact received good data, less spam, and better user experience overall. However,  it has become more difficult for users that represented franchises and companies with multiple locations to verify each location. Rather than receiving a postcard at each business location, users did not receive postcards and thus chose to not verify any location. The time of unverified listings has come to an end.
Yesterday at our first Local Search Summit, which David Mihm will be posting a wrap up on here shortly, Google announced in the final session that they went live with a new feature that allows large franchises and/or any company with 10 or more locations to simply fill out a request form (located here).  Users with multiple locations can now simply plead their case for a verified listing, agree to follow the Local Business Center guidelines and they will receive a yes or no answer shortly after.
This is a big step for Google and I think a much needed one. Users have been screaming for this feature for a long time and Google has come through big time for us. As much constant criticism Google has received for their lack of support for Google Maps (much of which was deserved), they have gone about these changes in the appropriate manner. They had to minimize the verification methods because too many people were taking advantage of the LBC and that was causing too much grief for users. They catered to the majority first (the end user) and then added a great feature for the minority (the large franchises) too make up for it.
Another question that came from the audience yesterday was if Search Marketers could take advantage of this feature. Ari Bezman, Google LBC Product Manager, stated that they are not in the business of mediating who controls the data for the businesses in question. However, what they do need is confirmation from the business via the form that the given LBC account may then have control of those listings.
This is a big, big step in getting large franchises online. Hats off to the Google Maps team for getting this feature launched, doing the right thing, and catering to the need of the larger users in the LBC.

Google Maps Reaches Out to Small Businesses

Wednesday, July 8th, 2009

I received an interesting invitation yesterday from the Google Maps team.

They are reaching out to local small business owners hosting an event in San Francisco city hall called “Favorite Places - Celebrating Local Businesses.”

This is the first event like this that I’ve seen from the Google Local Business Center. Given some of the trouble that small business owners have had communicating with Google about issues with their local profiles, I’m hoping this is the beginning of a broader outreach effort by Google to local business owners.

Google Favorite Places event invite

Google Favorite Places event invite

Many small business owners that have set up a nice profile in the Google Local Business Center have really come to depend on the traffic and customer inquiries generated from their local profiles and related search results in the Google 10-Pack.

But when problems happen - I know several local business owner who’s profiles were mixed up with other businesses - there is almost no way for them to get the issues corrected.

As many of my colleagues have pointed out, Google is providing a very valuable service here, but business owners need better communication and support from Google.

Let’s hope this event is the beginning of a new “proactive” outreach program by Google to small business owners!

Web Reference Building Tips

Sunday, January 4th, 2009

One of the first things most local search marketers have on their to do lists is getting their listings to appear in a Google Onebox at the top of Google’s search results. To be in the box, you usually need to be in Google’s top local search results. And one of the major factors that influences that are “web references.” Web references aren’t links, but in local search results, they act similarly to how links can boost a page in “regular” search results. Here are some ways of quickly accumulating some great web references and bump your local listing towards the top in Google

What is a web reference?

Google crawls local sites, internet yellow pages (IYPs) and other sources to gather as much information as it can about all the local businesses it has in its index. When it finds a page referencing a business it knows of, it then places that page in the “Web Pages” section of the Google local listing and adds whatever data it has gathered as it sees fit.

1) The more categories the better naprosyn

When creating your local listing in internet yellow pages or local search channels, make sure to add as many relevant categories as possible. Most typical IYPs will have City+Category pages made throughout their website for Google to index. So if you add your listing to two relevant categories, when Google crawls those pages, they will both be added as to separate web references.

2) Coupons are more than just an incentive

Google allows you to create coupons to add to your local listing to use as an incentive for customers to choose your business or help market current promotions. What they don’t tell you is that Google also crawls its own coupon pages and can also apply them as a web reference, as well as you can see at the bottom of this example:

google-coupon-reference

3) Throw a party

After you have been successful in the first two steps and getting some great web references, throw a party. But wait, don’t forget to add this party to local event sites like meetup or Yahoo! Upcoming. Google also crawls these sites for local content about the businesses it knows of and, you guessed it, attributes these as web references:

upcomingweb

Try these tips — there’s a good chance your competitor is not, and they might give you and advantage they’re missing out on.

Onebox vs. Natural Results

Sunday, January 4th, 2009

In October of 2008 I spoke at SMX East on a panel with Mike Blumenthal, and Eric Stein, Director of Google Local Markets. The panel went really well and had a really great audience, thanks to all of you who showed up. One question that got brought up that I didn’t have time to address that I liked was, the value of a #1 positions in a Onebox result vs. the #1 Organic position on that same page. The answer may or may not shock you.

At the moment I am Director of Innovation at a Local Search firm, and have access to tons and tons of data due to the tens of thousands of customers we have. Recently I started doing a lot of data mining and found some pretty interesting results.

I went through 50 different examples where we had a #1 spot in the Oneox and a #1 in the natural section on the same page. Guess what? The organic result actually got 1.6x more results than the Onebox did.

One interesting fact is that the majority of the users who got to the site via the natural link had resolution above 1024×768 and the majority of users who visited via the Onebox result had resoultion of 1024×768 or under. This makes sense because the lower the resolution of the screen the more real estate the Onebox listing gets “above the fold.

We took time to make sure that all the stats we measured that the queries produced both a Onebox result and Organic result with both in the #1 position.

A lot of you may wonder how I differentiated the clicks from the Onebox vs. Natural because Google does not add an extra parameter in the offering URL that allows you to tell the difference between click in the Onebox. We were able to gather this data because our Local Listing was pointing to a different URL than the #1 organic result we had.

Does this mean that the Onebox is not as good as a natural position? Maybe. You see we were unable to track calls so in the sense of click through rates natural is better, but actual customers calls has yet to be determined.