Google Algorithm Places Emphasis on Brands
February 26th, 2009 by sarahl@mannixmarketing.com
Yes, indeedy…there has been another Google algorithm update. Did you think you were safe?
Welcome to the world of the search engines! An insightful post on Google branding, written by Aaron Wall of SEO Book, explains briefly the past impacts of the various Google updates. He mentions the Florida Update, along with the Google Austin update and goes into detail on how these filtering/algorithmic changes have effected the search world as a whole.
What’s next?
There is talk of the next big algorithmic update being, quite possibly, bigger than the Florida Update. For those of who don’t know what I’m talking about, here is a breif explanation of an event that rocked the search engine world. November 16, 2003 was a cataclysmic day that changed the life of many businesses, including the world of SEO. What happened?
- Webpages that had been ranked highly for years in Google vanished and the relevancy of the searches were greatly diminished.
- People believed that Google administered a ’seo filter’. This spawned a variety of theories as to what really happened and what triggered Google to do this.
- This update made the heads of SEO’s spin, as sites began dropping from the search results pages. Webpages that were dropped included those having: repetitive inbound anchor text, spammed keywords across titles, meta data, or body text, or lack of unique on-site copy
So long are the days of ‘easy optimization’ (simply putting keywords into a title tag, meta description or loosely implementing them on a page). Buying or selling links was and still is grey-sided SEO and websites were quickly “penalized”, or looked down upon if Google picked up on this. Gone are the days of rudimentary thinking that repetition is all you need.
Thus, the craft of true search engine optimization was born.
With steep competition in all types of industries (get a website, everyone is doing it!) comes filtering, optimization and spam. As we all know, the goal of a search engine is to deliver users the best search results for a query. So, they need some type of ’standards’, ‘filter’, ‘voice of reason’ on how to determine the best way to deliver accurate results.
Many of you may have remembered the Google Penalty 6 Position and remember how it was reversed. Or, what about the advent of rel=nofollow attributes to help eliminate link spam? Nowadays, it’s in your best interest to place this tag on bought links, or perhaps utilize this to discredit some links, while emphasizing others. Nonetheless, this was another Google update that was talked about in past years that has effected today’s web world.
Let’s not forget one of the latest algorithm updates: Universal Search (including personal and behavioral search). Google Local, News, podcasts, audio, m3players, images, maps, PDFs and video are just a few media facets to think about. Is it the way of the future? I think so.
Ok, so getting back to this Google branding theory…
Some people speculate that, “…they [search engines] may be using some sort of measuring of typed in traffic numbers.” In my opinion, I think it goes beyond just simple placements or link building, I think it’s the marketing strategy as a whole – whether is it measured by how many times a brand is typed in, or how many times a brand is ‘mentioned’ on blogs, posts, forums, ads, etc.
What does this mean for the little guy? How are the little guys supposed to compete with these monstrous branded sites, who may not have even SEO’d their sites, but are ranking based solely on brand reputation? Does this mean that the Hampton Inns of the world will appear #1 over the boutique bed and breakfasts, local hotels and inns simply for their name?
I think we need to be vigilant and really think more about ourselves as a brand. Are we getting our name out there? Are we posting, commenting, ‘befriending’, joining or tweeting as much as we can to build brand reputation and awareness?
As stated by Eric Schmidt in Aaron Walls article, “Brands are the solution, not the problem…Brands are how you sort out the cesspool.” He made note to say that brands were increasingly important signals that content can be trusted.
So, what comes first, the brand or the content? Does the brand make the content, or does the content make the brand?
The other part to this mix is the wording of the content. It has been known in the past that search engines ’see’ the keywords for just that, keywords. Wouldn’t it be nice if search engines understood the context, not just the keywords themselves? This is also something to watch for in the future…
A strategy: Work the long tail keywords for smaller, more niche businesses.
Let’s hear your thoughts on this!
Tags: algorithms, google
February 26th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Great Post Sarah!
February 27th, 2009 at 1:59 am
It will be interesting to see if this can save some big newspapers such as the LA Times.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Thanks, Conor for your thoughts. It is so sad about the newspaper decline…just this morning, I heard about the Rocky Mountain News closing, http://budurl.com/pfyu Things definitely are changing….
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
To me, it makes sense. If you look at Aaron's ex's, they're all searches at the head of the snake. Ex: "watches" returns Seiko, Swatch, Timex, etc… Duh, they should be showing up! At this broad level of search, to return a broad level of product or "Brand" makes sense. Now same example, drop in "mickey mouse" or "gold" or "leather" in front of "watches" and you'll see these brands start to fall off while smaller, less known sites fill in the gaps. In general, the more specific you get, the less relevant brand becomes (unless brand is part of your keyword). Time will tell, but I think branding will stick close to the head of search.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
What does this change in our SEO strategy? For the most part, it shouldn't change much. What have we been telling clients: To be as specific as possible – a.k.a. use long tail keyword phrases for better results and better ROI. We would not advise a site to go after "watches" – it would be time for a reality check, a budget check or both. Unless you're a major player already established online or are willing to work your butt off investing a lot of resources over a long period of time to build up a great online watch store, then you shouldn't be showing up in the Top 10 for "watches". It just isn't relevant to return a lower caliber site at this top level. To me, branding makes sense and is not a complete break from Google's trending. We've been seeing this movement for a while now as you noted in the history of algo updates.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Bill, I think you're right on here! Yes, think about it…if I'm a local watch company – why would I want to even compete with a Seiko? Doesn't make much sense. Budgets are different, websites are different, goals would be different. It's always been known that long tail keywords tend to convert better than say the 'short tail'. Unless you have x,y,z (old domain, tons of backlinks, established domain in your industry), getting ranked for extremely broad keyword phrases may be very challenging and requite a lot of time/money. I think businesses need to re-evaluate their goals – what truly do YOU want to get found for, and then base a strategy around the goals. Branding does make sense, but I don't think it necessarily changes, per se, an SEO strategy (as you've mentioned below).
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Bill, just found this too – solidifies what you are saying as well about getting found for the 'long tail', http://cli.gs/agVZgX
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Exactly, nice find. I like that it lends to the idea that "long tail" provides support for eventual "short tail" placements. The other piece to the puzzle for the eventual acquisition is through building up backlinks via traditional and social media exposure (which loosely translates to building up your brand)
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
nice to read some common sense here … sure google did yet another 'update' , but that doesn't mean it's the end of seo.
I stick to the same tactics just as well, it's not what you do, but how you do it, as long you commit to quality everything is going to be just fine, the fact that spammers and scammers are being filtered out more and more is only good news, real companies with real website are not affected by any of this …
March 4th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
thanks, michiel for your post and for taking the time to read our blog. we hope the information is helpful.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:23 am
found your site on del.icio.us today and really liked it.. i bookmarked it and will be back to check it out some more later ..
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Your information is really helpful. Thanks for sharing
December 18th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I bookmark this post thanks Mr Michiel for sharing helpful info.
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:40 pm
I use this tactic for my web site to
January 16th, 2010 at 7:04 am
This is probably about the first major update in a year 2009 that I have seen Google.com do anything remarkable that bucks the trend of placing more emphasis on legitimate authoritative domains. Eventhough things are still shifting around quite a bit and will probably head back the other direction soon.
Nicholas Salvia
January 20th, 2010 at 7:37 am
Yah i would like to use it as i am a new user,
January 28th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Its good that google keeps updating, maybe this will reduce the spam.
February 5th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Great tactics thanks for share it.
I what to use it.