Strangely enough I was in a meeting with Bing yesterday, where this question was one of the questioned asked. Just as strangely the reps from Bing were kind of shady on the details of any deal, so its good to hear details that the Bing/Yahoo deal is now closed.

Officials in Canada and Australia have already had the deal signed off, so the fact that the US is now a step closer to regulatory approval would suggest getting this signed of in Europe should follow (however I guess one shouldn’t count their chickens before they hatch). This comes on the same day that Google announce yet another major change to their search engine results in the guise of personalised search for all – Co-Incidence? A sceptic amongst might suggest that

In a statement issued by the companies

Microsoft and Yahoo! believe that this deal will create a sustainable and more compelling alternative in search that can provide consumers, advertisers and publishers real choice, better value, and more innovation.

Yahoo! and Microsoft welcome the broad support the deal has received from key players in the advertising industry and remain hopeful that the closing of the transaction can occur in early 2010.

I know Bing have aggresive expansion plans, certainly Steve Ballmer’s forecast is well ahead of time in terms of being the number two player in the market, but getting number one is going to be a hell of a lot harder than an ailing Yahoo.

To read the full press release please click here

It would appear that the long mooted Microsoft/Yahoo search deal has now been concluded according to a number of high profile publications such as TechCrunch and Search Cowboys. The official  press release goes as follows:

Microsoft, Yahoo! Change Search Landscape
Global Deal Creates Better Choice for Consumers and Advertisers

SUNNYVALE, CA and REDMOND, WA — 29 July, 2009 — Yahoo! and Microsoft announced an agreement that will improve the Web search experience for users and advertisers, and deliver sustained innovation to the industry. In simple terms, Microsoft will now power Yahoo! search while Yahoo! will become the exclusive worldwide relationship sales force for both companies’ premium search advertisers.

For Web users and advertisers, this deal will accelerate the pace and breadth of innovation by combining both companies’ complementary strengths and search platforms into a market competitor with the scale to fuel sustained development in search and search advertising. Users will find what they care about faster and with more personal relevance. Microsoft’s competitive search platforms will lead to more value for advertisers, better results for web publishers, and increased innovation and efficiency across the Internet.
Under this agreement, Yahoo! will focus on its core business of providing consumers with great experiences with the world’s favorite online destinations and Web products.

“This agreement comes with boatloads of value for Yahoo!, our users, and the industry. And I believe it establishes the foundation for a new era of Internet innovation and development,” said Yahoo! CEO Carol Bartz. “Users will continue to experience search as a vital part of their Yahoo! experiences and will enjoy increased innovation thanks to the scale and resources this deal provides. Advertisers will also benefit from scale and enjoy greater ease of use and efficiencies working with a single platform and sales team for premium advertisers. Finally, this deal will help us increase our investments in priority areas in winning audience properties, display advertising capabilities, and mobile experiences.”

Providing a viable alternative to advertisers, this deal will combine Yahoo! and Microsoft search marketplaces so that advertisers no longer have to rely on one company that dominates more than 70 percent of all search. With the addition of Yahoo!’s search volume, Microsoft will achieve the size and scale required to unleash competition and innovation in the market, for consumers as well as advertisers.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said the agreement will provide Microsoft’s search engine, Bing, the scale necessary to more effectively compete, attracting more users and advertisers, which in turn will lead to more relevant ads and search results.

“Through this agreement with Yahoo!, we will create more innovation in search, better value for advertisers, and real consumer choice in a market currently dominated by a single company,” said Ballmer. “Success in search requires both innovation and scale. With our new Bing search platform, we’ve created breakthrough innovation and features. This agreement with Yahoo! will provide the scale we need to deliver even more rapid advances in relevancy and usefulness. Microsoft and Yahoo! know there’s so much more that search could be. This agreement gives us the scale and resources to create the future of search.”

“This deal fits the long-term strategic direction of Yahoo! to remain the world’s leading online media company and Carol Bartz has the full and unanimous support of the Yahoo! Board behind this deal,” said Roy Bostock, chairman, Yahoo! Inc. “This is a significant opportunity for us. Microsoft is an industry innovator in search, and it is a great opportunity for us to focus our investments in other areas critical to our future.”

The key terms of the agreement are as follows:

- The term of the agreement is 10 years;

- Microsoft will acquire an exclusive 10 year license to Yahoo!’s core search technologies, and Microsoft will have the ability to integrate Yahoo! search technologies into its existing web search platforms;
Microsoft’s Bing will be the exclusive algorithmic search and paid search platform for Yahoo! sites. Yahoo! will continue to use its technology and data in other areas of its business such as enhancing display advertising technology.

- Yahoo! will become the exclusive worldwide relationship sales force for both companies’ premium search advertisers. Self-serve advertising for both companies will be fulfilled by Microsoft’s AdCenter platform, and prices for all search ads will continue to be set by AdCenter’s automated auction process.

- Each company will maintain its own separate display advertising business and sales force.

- Yahoo! will innovate and “own” the user experience on Yahoo! properties, including the user experience for search, even though it will be powered by Microsoft technology.

- Microsoft will compensate Yahoo! through a revenue sharing agreement on traffic generated on Yahoo!’s network of both owned and operated (O&O) and affiliate sites.

- Microsoft will pay traffic acquisition costs (TAC) to Yahoo! at an initial rate of 88% of search revenue generated on Yahoo!’s O&O sites during the first 5 years of the agreement.

- Yahoo! will continue to syndicate its existing search affiliate partnerships.

- Microsoft will guarantee Yahoo!’s O&O revenue per search (RPS) in each country for the first 18 months following initial implementation in that country.

- At full implementation (expected to occur within 24 months following regulatory approval), Yahoo! estimates, based on current levels of revenue and current operating expenses, that this agreement will provide a benefit to annual GAAP operating income of approximately $500 million and capital expenditure savings of approximately $200 million. Yahoo! also estimates that this agreement will provide a benefit to annual operating cash flow of approximately $275 million.

The agreement protects consumer privacy by limiting the data shared between the companies to the minimum necessary to operate and improve the combined search platform, and restricts the use of search data shared between the companies. The agreement maintains the industry-leading privacy practices that each company follows today.

The agreement does not cover each company’s web properties and products, email, instant messaging, display advertising, or any other aspect of the companies’ businesses. In those areas, the companies will continue to compete vigorously.

The transaction will be subject to regulatory review. The agreement entered into today anticipates that the parties will enter into more detailed definitive agreements prior to closing. Microsoft and Yahoo! expect the agreement to be closely reviewed by the industry and government regulators, and welcome questions. The companies are hopeful that closing can occur in early 2010.

The companies have established a website at http://www.choicevalueinnovation.com to provide consumers, advertisers and publishers with additional information about the benefits of the agreement.

According to the live Conference Call which is taking place as I speak, both companies can focus on core areas something which could mean each taking a greater interest in a specific niche. Certainly for a long time Yahoo’s focus appears to have been primarily display focussed and such a move could mean Microsoft taking a much greater role in the development of the search product, although it would appear that Yahoo technology would be behind much of the search functionality of both search engines (Quote @searchcowboys twitter stream)

Yahoo technology will be integrated with Bing and search both networks

The inevitable question will thus be raised. Is the new Microhoo a viable competitor to Google. When considering this question one should consider this outside of merely the US and even more so Western Europe. Many South-East Asian countries have a far high number of Yahoo (vs Google) userbase and as such, this deal can only serve to establish both brands even more in those markets.

What it will however allow is greater potential traction within the valuable dare I say first world countries where advertising revenues via search are far more valuable, and allow them a more competitive alternative to that of the seperate Yahoo and MSN brands.

As much as I would like to think this is going to compete, any immediate impact is unlikely as be totally completed before 2010. Further this any increased traction within the search markets is going to be hugely down to Microhoo’s ability to innovate – something which I personally think has always set Google apart from many of its competitors.

Its certainly an interesting development – however I can’t help thinking it may be a little bit too late…

There have been a number of tweets going round Twitter over the last hour or so relating to combining a PPC and SEO strategy and figures for employing such a tactic. Google and Yahoo for obvious reasons will highlight the benefits of such a tactic, however there are a number of such studies in existance, and the evidence is quite compelling.

99% of C-level executives use the web at work.

52% of executives consider the Internet the most important source of information on business.

C-level execs are online somewhere between 115 minutes and 137 minutes per day.
Source: Harris Interactive & GartnerG2 Study, March 2005

Yahoo have one such example where the following evidence regarding holistic search marketing was producted
Source: Yahoo

Google have a similar bit of research published however whilst the original Yahoo research targeted impact on clickthrough, the Google study was more involved in terms of brand perception and brand association.

Further research by Enquiro and Google continues to reinforce the benefits of a combined PPC/SEO strategy and the effect it has in terms of consumers willingness to purchase following engagement.

The full Enquiro/Google research whitepaper can be found via the Enquiro website (Highly recommended reading).

There are obvious niches where such tactics may not work, and it is often a case of testing (refining and testing again) however I would always advise caution when deciding to blanket turn off PPC once organic traction has been obtained. As the research above suggests, it may not always result in the best ROI.

In the lastest of Matt Cutts’ videos on SEO he addresses the issue of the priority field in the XML sitemap, following a question from a Google user. The user asks whether having the same priority will be penalised.

For those who may be concerned you will be glad to hear that Google will not be penalising your site any time soon, instead where priority has been set at the same level (or not provided at all), Google will look to determine the priority of the pages themselves

Yahoo’s market share has been somewhat volatile recently, andaccording to some experts a continuing decline is to be expected, particularly if some reports from the Dow Jones are to be believed. According to a report by the Web Street Journal Yahoo’s share may decline by around another 3% and lose around 12-18% of its current search volume. Much of this can be attributed to the loss of partnership deals with major computer hardware manufacturers such as HP and Acer.

A secondary impact of the loss of such deals is probably more notable, particularly when you consider the lack of ‘competition’ in the sector. Lose Yahoo and you only really have  a choice of three – in realistic terms two search engines to choose from namely MSN and Google. Given Google’s dominance in the market, I would suggest there is only one suitable competitor and that competitor happens to be your nearest rival in terms of market share.

It is indeed further noticeable that Microsoft have indeed been quick to exploit these opportunities. Partnerships with HP (replacing previous engine of choice Yahoo) and Dell will have given Microsoft some added impetus – and the potential to immediately target around 55% of PC shipments in the US. With Google continuing to dominate the search landscape it is increasingly becoming a race for second place, something neither engine has managed to make a clear move on.

Yahoo have been quick to suggest that the loss of such parternships shouldn’t affect market share as much as the above report would have us believe suggesting “consumers will continue to use Yahoo search even if they buy a new computer pre-loaded with a rival’s toolbar.”. I personally would suggest the only engine that could guarantee that level of loyalty would be Google, and that taking that for granted in the current climate is possibly a bit foolhardy – particularly given the apparant focus on search from Microsoft, and even the rise of channels such as Twitter as a search engine of sorts.

Whilst the US search engine market is very different to that of the UK, the share of Google being far higher in the UK, I would suggest this could still have some significant knock on effects. With Google still taking nothing for granted, in a continual drive towards further relevance (and lets face it increased revenues), the other two need to continue to be innovative in order to attract both advertisers and searchers alike to utilise them more. Lets be brutal both of them could do no worse by starting at:

• Looking further afield. The world doesn’t end at the US, new products are generally slow at moving to foreign markets (if at all).
• Giving users value add. I am always disappointed by the relevance of a number of searchers on both engines – and whilst I personally use them more than most – it comes through a requirement of considerable data mining more than anything
• Giving advertisers value add. In my opinion natural search battles is continually ongoing. Monetising and ‘Management’ or organic search and digital asset value adds would seem to be natural progression
• Hitting new channels hard. Google in particular seem to be pushing mobile hard. The other two need to be hitting this – harder!!

Search engines can’t take anything for granted. Lets just take a look at Altavista. They have to continue to evolve – otherwise things can change and change very quickly. I personally would expect a very different landscape in 5-10 years, but I guess only time will tell.

Firstly, I should highlight much of the rationale for this post comes from an earlier post from Bigmouthmedia’s Andrew Girdwood who highlighted the use of search in the current MVA (Thats Monsters vs Aliens) trailers currently doing the rounds on the television here in the UK.

In the final frame of the ad, the viewer is prompted to search for ‘MVA’. Now I am a big fan of prompting viewers to integrate with search for four main reasons

1. Many browsers ‘multi-task’ . That is they watch television whilst browsing the internet.
2. Search phrases are often easier to remember than domains
3. Potential for greater interaction with potential browsers – PPC, Organic and Blended search results
4. Ability to track the influence of the advert.

However the implementation of such campaigns is done very badly, and sadly Monsters vs Aliens is no different. There have already been a number of posts regarding its implementation on Google primarily, mostly regarding the PPC, however it is the lack of organic placement that is a secondary concern. With a rough 75% (organic)/25% (paid) breakdown it hugely suprises me that organic is often a forgotten channel in these campaigns leaving these types of campaigns open to cannabalisation from competitors (albeit limited in the MVA example) and limited impact.

And talking of limited impact, I would add that I would suggest that is exactly what the MVA implementation will be having. Whilst there is no doubt it will inspire users to search…

… What about those searches on Yahoo

Monsters vs Aliens advertising on Yahoo - erm Where??????

and MSN

Monsters vs Aliens on MSN

Now admittedly Google is the majority shareholder as far as search volumes in the UK is concerned however that doesn’t mean Yahoo and MSN should be ignored, particularly if the premise of the campaign is to encourage people to search for the campaign. After all by ignoring the other two engines, surely you are getting a slightly inaccurate reflection of the impact the ad has had on search engine traffic?

It should also be noted the impact it appears to have had as far as searches are concerned.

Impact on search trends

Just imagine the impact it could have had if:

• They had complimented the paid search ad with an organic ad
• They had thought better through the PPC creative
• They had run the ad on multiple engines.
• Considered the impact of blended search. Video search optimisation should have been a given….

Many of these campaigns are still in their infancy, with many organisations still in early rollouts, however one would suggest they may want to think about what they want to get out of the campaign – and develop a campaign best suited to maximising those targets.

At present too many of these campaigns, appear half thought out and half implemented and as such I would suggest are only getting half the returns they could be getting. Moving forward greater integration (and greater thought) is required – if these integrated campaigns are to be a fully effective marketing strategy.

It is not long ago, that Yahoo ruled the world, well the search world anyhow. One often forgets that to a certain extent, without Yahoo, we may not have seen the rise  (and rise and rise) of Google, and it is thus sad to see the current state of the Yahoo search product. Whilst it continues to try and elolve its online advertising product set it is the Yahoo Mail product that continues to gain traction, something according to an article on ZDNet that hasn’t been lost on new Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz who is quoted as saying

“Yahoo Mail is becoming increasingly critical to the company. Yahoo Mail has a billion emails pass through its servers every day and it’s critical that the company enables better photo sharing and other features”

This is further reinforced by some recent data from Hitwise. Yahoo Mail accounts for around 36.71% of visits to Yahoo properties, followed by the portal homepage and quite significantly further back Yahoo Search.  Other Yahoo properties such as Yahoo News and My Yahoo! were in a close knit group back around 3%.

Source: Hitwise

Whats more the Yahoo Mail continues to see growth – 3%, whilst not as big as GMail (88%) still significantly better than that of Windows Live Mail which saw a loss of over 20%. Whilst search continues to struggle against strong competition from MSN – which I must say have a number of interesting new products looming – it is good to see some significant growth from the Yahoo camp.

Many people expected Yahoo’s results to be low. However I would suggest the figures announced beat even the some pessimists forecasts and expectations: A couple of the ‘highlights’ from their financial results included:

Full Year 2008 Financial Results

• Revenues for 2008 were $7,209m ( a 3 percent increase up from $6,969m in 2007)
• Marketing services revenues were $6,316m for 2008, a 4 percent increase compared to $6,088m for 2007.
  • Marketing services revenues from Owned and Operated sites came in at $4,046m for 2008, a 10% increase from $3,670m in 2007.
  • Marketing services revenues from Affiliate sites were $2,270m for 2008, down 6% compared from 2007.
• Fees revenues were $892 million for 2008, up 1% compared to 2007′s figure of $881m.
• Revenues excluding TAC were $5,399m for 2008, a 6 percent increase compared to $5,113m for 2007.
• However the biggest stand out figure was…operating income for 2008 was $13m compared to $695m for 2007.

Q4 Specific reading

• Operating loss for Q4 2008 was $278m in comparison to operating income of $191m for Q4 2007.
• Revenues were $1,806m for Q4 2008. In real terms this was a 1 percent decrease compared to $1,832m for the same period of 2007.
• United States segment revenues for the fourth quarter of 2008 were $1,338 million, a 2 percent increase compared to $1,313 million for the same period of 2007.

Source: SearchEngineLand 2009

In terms of outlook for 2009, CFO Blake Jorgensen suggested this remained uncertain as ‘Yahoo has “less visibility” than it did a year ago on the “advertiser pipeline”‘. Certainly MSN appears to have gained some traction in certain markets – primarily at the expense of Yahoo, however I would suggest much of this is down to the reduction in ‘Premium Display Advertising’ as advertisers reduce branded advertising in the current economic climate

I would suggest though it is new CEO Carol Bartz’s feedback that is particulary interesting, in particular in the fact she does not seem to be definitively saying that the search side of Yahoo will stay Yahoo. The following comments in particular may shed some light

• Am I immediately planning to sell the Search business? I didn’t come here with any preconceived ideas about what to do.
• Re integration of search and display: Search is like a house with different rooms; all of it is part of a complex that allows users to search and us to get money. Some parts of it are easy to break apart and others are not. This is an important asset for the company. It’s important for us to invest in it if we’re going to keep and get the most value for it if we’re going to sell it.
• On the Yahoo brand: Should stand for the best information site on the internet. The problem with some of the many [Yahoo] properties is that they can distract from the core products

I would suggest no body is in any doubt as to the huge job head of Carol Bartz at Yahoo. It is obvious that the continuing evolution and popularity of Google is hurting revenues (searchwise), and with potential rollouts from MSN in the pipeline there is still the considerable threat from MSN, and other potential competitors from overseas (Naver etc) . I would add this is unlikely to reduce the amount of rumour regarding Yahoo search over the coming weeks and months. Now is the time when many of the engines are innovating and rolling out new services and solutions. Whilst Yahoo have rolled out some innovative solutions, they are playing catchup to Googles considerable inventory – and I do have my doubts as to whether Yahoo’s existing inventory is in the right places to best exploit the current climate.

So where now for Yahoo? I think there is a common thought that 2009 is going to be make or break for Yahoo not just in terms of search but I would suggest Yahoo as a whole. I personally believe Yahoo have too much to make up in terms of becoming a serious competitor to Google, particularly as it currently stands, and I do believe the search product is going to have to evolve or merge in order to pose any serious short to medium term competition.

More information

• Yahoo Earnings Release
• Yahoo Q4 Shows Operating Loss; CEO Bartz: ‘This Is Not A Company That Needs To Be Pulled Apart And Left For The Chickens’

As the second part of the Twitter series here on Holistic, I thought I would suggest some of the people I am, and would recommend following on Twitter, and being a SEO in the UK, obviously all these are UK based.

Dave Naylor (DaveN)

Company: Bronco

WHO?: One of the ‘big dogs’ of UK search marketing, Dave started working in the SEO industry over 10 years ago.

WHY: Hugely popular, highly respected and well worth following

WHERE: http://twitter.com/DaveNaylor

Company: MediaVest/MVi

WHO?: Head of Search at MediaVest. Industry veteran (sorry Jon)

WHY: Widely respected and a regular speaker on both the SMX and SES speaking circuits. Amongst other things – he’s my boss.

WHERE: http://twitter.com/JonDMyers

Company: BigmouthMedia

WHO?: Head of Search at Bigmouthmedia.

WHY: Hardcore Search Marketeer – and ‘face’ of Bigmouthmedia (erm ). Passionate about all things search, and if that bores you, theres always his gaming.

WHERE: http://twitter.com/AndrewGirdwood

Company: Blogstorm/Branded3

WHO?: Director of Search at Branded3.

WHY: Been a magic year for Patrick and the Blogstorm blog.

WHERE: http://twitter.com/patrickaltoft

Company:

WHO?: Marketing Expert @ jimsmarketingblog.com

WHY: Hugely experienced marketeer and VERY well connected (Over 16000 followers on Twitter)

WHERE: http://twitter.com/Jimconnolly

Company: Altogether Digital

WHO?: SEO and Social Media Director at Altogether Digital

WHY: Entertaining blogger, and if that fails theres always the music commentary.

WHERE: http://twitter.com/ciaranj

Company: SEOptimise

WHO?: Director of Search at SEOptimise

WHY: Some great posts coming out of SEOptimise at the moment. Worth following for that alone.

WHERE: http://twitter.com/kevgibbo

Company: Microsoft/MSN

WHO?: Microsoft Adcentre’s Community Manager

WHY: Works for Microsoft apart from anything else (Who would turn down the chance of winning an ‘I’m a PC tshirt). Apart from that his regular commentary is hugely entertaining

WHERE: http://twitter.com/MelCarson

Company: Distilled

WHO?: Founder of Distilled with Duncan Morris

WHY: His involvement with SEOMoz is well known, however the site itself is a wealth of information.

WHERE: http://twitter.com/willcritchlow

Company: Ayima Search Marketing

WHO?: One of the Ayima Gang

WHY: Entertaining Blogger, and hugely entertaining twitter read not just in terms of latest on hangovers….

WHERE: http://twitter.com/evilgreenmonkey

Matt Sawyer – DataDial -Online Marketeer, SEO and Social Media Junkie – http://twitter.com/mattuk

Rob Watts – Latitude – SEO – Stephen Pavlovich – Bonytoad – http://twitter.com/bonytoad

Jane Copland – SEOMoz/Ayima – Only here as she isn’t 100% in the UK yet- http://twitter.com/coplandmj

Judith Lewis – I-Level – Search Director at I-Level – http://twitter.com/JudithLewis

Lisa Ditlefsen – Base One – Head of Search at BaseOne – http://twitter.com/LisaDitlefsen

George Hopkin – Johnston Press – SEO Evangelist – http://twitter.com/GeorgeHopkin

Paul Walsh – Various – http://twitter.com/PaulWalsh

Nikki Pilkington – http://twitter.com/nikkipilkington

Dave Davis – RedFly Marketing – http://twitter.com/daveredfly

Dan Alderson – Amaze PLC – http://twitter.com/pinje

and the final one

Peter Young

Company: MediaVest / Holistic Search

WHO?: SEO Manager at MediaVest.

WHY: Why not?

WHERE: http://twitter.com/peteyoung

Thats just some of my recommendations, Please feel free to add yours…

For the second year running, Britney Spears has topped the Yahoo Top 10 searches.

Britney tops Yahoo searches for 2008

When comparing the list to 2007, you will actually notice it hasn’t actually changed that much with other stalwarts such as WWE and Jessica Alba also featuring prominently

The top 10 list for 2008

1. Britney Spears
2. WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment)
3. Barack Obama
4. Miley Cyrus
5. RuneScape
6. Jessica Alba
7. Naruto
8. Lindsay Lohan
9. Angelina Jolie
10. American Idol

(Bold Italic denotes visibility in 2007)

I, like many have been following the recent events in the US election, with the fight for the White House. It was therefore interesting to see the influence online has played in the campaign. Two recent articles have really struck a cord as a result.

Firstly, Sage Lewis highlighted the importance of online (and in particular Search and Social Media) played in Obamas rise to the White House. In his article, Sage mentioned a number of interesting statistics, namely:

• There are nearly 2 million links to Obama’s website, nearly twice as much as those pointing to John McCains website.
• According to statistics released by Rubicon Consulting, “Democrats are more active online than Republicans. Democrats are more likely to participate in online communities, and say they’re more heavily influenced in their voting decisions by information they find online.”
• Obama’s campaign had social media at its heart, not just in terms of the site itself, but also in terms of the personnel involved. The involvement of Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, shows the importance of social media within the strategy.

The second article of particular interest to search was Kate Kay on Clickz. In the article, Kate highlighted that Obama’s campaign spent nearly $8 million through October to Google, Yahoo, Facebook, news Web sites, ad networks, and in-game ad firm Massive (which I talked about at the recent Interactive Marketing show in Manchester). In particular it is interesting to see where the money was spent.

• Just over $4 Million on Paid Search – roughly broken down $3.5 Million to Google, with Yahoo accounting for about an eighth of that, with $673000.
• Nearly $8 million spent on online ads.
• Interestingly, the spend on Social Media comes to the fore. Nearly three quarters of the social media budget used in September alone, with Facebook taking the lions share.
• The use of MSN owned Massive Incorporated (well worth a look) was interesting alone. The campaign placed ads pushing an early voting message in EA games, including a racing game called “Burnout Paradise,” targeting them to players in 10 battleground states.
• Ad networks were a particular focus with more than $600,000 was paid to a variety of networks throughout the year, including AOL’s Advertising.com, Collective Media, Undertone Networks, Burst Media, Quigo, DrivePM, Pulse360, Specific Media, and online video networks Broadband Enterprises and Tremor Media.
• Local online media targeting also saw significant spend with around $100000 being spent.

Politics is an area many people have an opinion about, and it is therefore suprising it is often not integral to modern day political campaigns, however it is encouraging to see more and more focus given to Online. In particular key channels such as Search (inc Online PR/Blogging), Display Online Brand Management (and monitoring in particular), should be a fundamental part of any modern day political framework.

Given the noise that has been generated on Twitter by many of my search colleagues with regards to the US Elections, it is suprising that McCains camp didn’t use online as a bigger battleground, and I personally think this is the first of a more digitally focussed policital landscape moving forward, as even we in the UK start using online as part of the political juggernaut.

Looking around doing a technical audit for a client, I had to go into the Yahoo Directory to explain why they should consider using page specific robots management to alter what was displayed on organic Yahoo searches.

In doing so, I stumbled across front page of the Yahoo Directory, something I will be honest I havent been to directly for a good while. On the front page, was a blog article as follows (something I will be honest I hadn’t seen before):

Yahoo Directory Blogs - PR8

Now I may have missed something here, but the Yahoo Directory front page is a PR 8 page (yes I know PR is by default a stale method of measurement but still). The links are not nofollowed, there is no page level robots management and the robots.txt file does not appear to be including any reference to the directory itself, thus I would suggest those links in question carry significant weighting.

It was also interesting to notice Yahoo’s apparent use of Google Webmaster Tools verification on the Yahoo Directory, certainly as neither uk.yahoo.com or us.yahoo.com portals seemed to use it

Yahoo source - notice the verify-v1 tagging

Maybe just me, but could this be further evidence of closer Google/Yahoo relationships…

I have been involved in a number of discussions as to the merits/demerits of .co.uk vs .com visibility primarily with Google. With the ongoing evolution of the algorithms, with localisation and relevancy being at the heart of it, its important to understand how this impacts on searchers. For this reason, understanding where such users are searching is very important.

Hitwise are one of the best aggregators of such data. Interestingly enough, they have recently published an overview of the leading search engines for August 2008, with the results as follows:

• Google.co.uk (Google UK) – 73.13%
• Google.com (Google Global/US) – 14.20%
• uk.search.yahoo.com (Yahoo UK) – 3.37%
• www.uk.ask.com (Ask) – 2.69%

Given many UK companies target UK customers, it is essential that your SEO strategy should at least pay reference to localisation of search. Google in particular rewards efforts to target your site to your local market by using metrics such as domain extension and hosting location to determine best fit.

If you aren’t thinking local – isn’t it about time you did.