Ten
Questions with: Danny
Sullivan
Last
one for the year, and who
better than someone
who needs no introduction. Apart
from "that man....".
Thanks for
taking the time to talk with
us Danny. Can you tell us a
bit about yourself? What is
your background?
I originally worked
in newspapers, first as a researcher
with the LA Times, then as a
graphics reporter for the Orange
County Register, back in the
early 90s. After seeing the
web for the first time in late
1994, I knew that it was something
I wanted to be part of. Newspapers
were slow to embrace the web,
so I jumped ship into private
web development through a friend's
company, in early 1995.
We
didn't just build web sites.
We also promoted
them through search engine submission,
link building and other Internet
publicity efforts. One day,
a client wondered why his web
site wasn't top ranked for a
particular phrase. We didn't
really have any good answers,
nor were there many to be found
on the web. So, I started researching
how search engines operated.
I published everything I'd discovered
through something I called, "A
Webmaster's Guide To Search
Engines," in early 1996.
Along with optimization tips,
I also published information
about which search engines I
thought were important.
The tips attracted
a lot of attention. When my
friend decided to close the
web development side of his
company to focus on software
development, I decided to keep
maintaining and expanding my
information. In mid-1997, I
moved everything over into a
new domain name and site, which
I thought would help people
locate the information more
easily. That was how SearchEngineWatch.com
was born.
By the end of
1997, the then Mecklermedia
(now Jupitermedia) purchased
the site from me. It was a great
arrangement, because it allowed
me to focus exclusively on the
editorial side of things, while
they handled advertising as
well as technical operations.
Finally, to answer
a question that comes up all
the time. No, I'm not British.
I'm from Orange County, California
and lived there until 1997.
I now live in England, near
the city of Salisbury. My wife
is British, and we moved over
here to be closer to her family.
That's why you often see both
California and UK references
in my writing. Despite my immersion
in the UK, I remain a proud
Californian!
You were onto
the power of search engine marketing
pretty early on. What made you
decide to follow that path as
opposed to say, web design,
or banner ads or some other
trend that was happening at
the time?
Well, as mentioned,
I had started up with web development
originally. However, even then,
we knew it wasn't enough to
simply build a web site. You
also had to ensure people could
find it. Search engine marketing
was one of several forms of
publicity we undertook. I ended
up focusing on search engines
exclusively because it was clear
to me that these were not creatures
that would disappear. Everyone
used them because they were
effective tools at locating
information, and in my opinion,
they were going to continue
to be a primary traffic channel
over the long term.
In fact, I remember
doing a freelance piece for
a major computer magazine about
search engines in early 1996.
At the time, I told them that
the topic of search engines
was huge, and that it wasn't
effectively covered by doing
a once-a-year round up. Nevertheless,
that continued to be the trend,
for the print world. Fortunately,
the web allowed me to pursue
the idea that there could be
continuing coverage about search
engines.
Are you doing
SEO these days? What sort of
work does your consulting firm,
Calafia, undertake?
I
always have a private chuckle
when someone
asks about my "firm," which
sounds so large, because it's
really just me with some assistance
from my wife. I do a limited
amount of consulting work these
days, either phone consultations
with those who want one-on-one
advice or a second opinion to
what they may be hearing from
SEO firms they are considering
or from internal technical or
marketing people. I also do
legal consulting on search engine-related
issues. I've kept things purposely
small, so that SEO firms and
search engines I work for stories
with don't feel I'm pursuing
research for my own benefit.
So, the vast majority of my
time is spent being editor of
Search Engine Watch.
While online
marketing trends come and go,
search engine marketing appears
to have been a constant. Where
do you see SEO heading in the
future? Does it have a future?
Absolutely,
search engine marketing has
a future.
At a conference earlier this
year, I likened search engines
to being a "reverse broadcast
network." People pay tons
to be on television because
you can get your message out
in front of millions of people:
broadcasting. With search engines,
millions of people are telling
you *their* messages: what they
want to buy, purchase or get
information about. You don't
broadcast to them; instead,
it's the reverse, they broadcast
to you. There's very little
if anything as a marketing or
information medium that I can
think of that compares to this.
It's golden and still today
amazingly unrecognized. Given
that search engines are so unique,
I can't see the area of marketing
on them going away.
Where
will it go? More paid, certainly.
That's
one reason I've tried to stress "search
engine marketing" as a
term that encompasses several
forms of search engine promotion.
Certainly we'll continue to
see traditional "search
engine optimization," the
practice of influencing crawler-based
editorial results, continue
to be effective. However, it's
not the only way of being found
on a search engine. Also, while
editorial results will continue
to be shown, I think you'll
see their prominence be more
eroded over time.
A
good example of this is how
Yahoo recently
added a fourth Overture listing
to the "Sponsor Matches" section
at the top of its search results
page. This pushes the editorial
listings down further. You can
still show up in the editorial
results for free, of course,
thanks to the use of Google
data. However, running a paid
listing that puts you "above
the fold" might be worth
it to some people for the additional
traffic it brings. It's certainly
something to consider.
Overall,
I think anyone involved with
search
engine marketing needs to firmly
understand there's both "PR-style" efforts
they can undertake as well as "advertising" efforts.
Search Engine PR is about influencing
those editorial results. It
offers no guarantees, but it
can still be an effective way
to get "natural" or "organic" traffic
and will continue to be one.
However, search engine advertising
also exists and can be complementary
to those PR efforts. I think
the most successful people with
search engine marketing will
be those who undertake both
PR and advertising efforts --
or if they specialize in only
one, they will ensure they partner
with someone who does the other.
We asked this
question of Ralph Tegtmeier
and Brett Tabke, and we'd like
to get your take on it: The
SEO world exists in a strange
place where the relationship
between the search engine and
the SEO is not clearly defined.
How do you think the search
engines feel about those who
practice SEO and do you ever
see a point in time where both
sides will see eye to eye?
Arguably, things
are better than they've ever
been before. Many SEOs simply
could not have personal relationships
with search engines prior to
about 1999. However, since then,
a number of changes have greatly
opened the dialog. There have
been conferences, both ones
I've produced and those by others,
which have connected SEOs to
search engines. The online forums,
especially WebmasterWorld.com,
have allowed both sides to reach
out to each other.
Probably
the greatest factor, however,
has been the
growth of "paid participation
programs," an overriding
name I use to lump together
paid listings, paid inclusion
and paid submission programs.
Why "paid participation?" Because
these programs have allowed
SEOs to
*participate* in the listing process in some way, and in a formal manner. Go
back to 1998, and the only search engine then willing to give you a formal,
guaranteed role was the then GoTo, today's Overture. Now, everyone's got some
type of program.
Indeed,
for the crawlers that operate
paid inclusion
programs, SEOs are their bread
and butter. While they don't
want to give a free ride to
spam -- or at least say they
don't want to do this -- it
certainly is true that SEOs
in paid inclusion programs are
going to get more feedback and
second chances if they've done
something wrong. In fact, they're
probably going to get more leeway
about what "wrong" is
defined as, if they are paying
to have content included.
Because of this,
I think the real adversarial
role that some want to see isn't
between search engines as a
whole and SEOs but between Google
and SEOs. Google has no paid
inclusion program, so when it
comes to its all-important editorial
results, SEOs (and web site
owners in general) have no guaranteed
way to open a dialog with the
search engine. That can lead
to frustration and perhaps a
sense that Google hates SEOs.
I wouldn't go
this far. Google, in my view,
has long reached out to the
SEO community. If they really
hated SEOs, you wouldn't see
them doing interviews with me,
with others, attending conferences
or taking part in forums.
That's
not to say that Google loves
SEO activities,
of course. At Google, and I
think with the technical side
of any search engine, there
can be an uncomfortableness
with the idea that people are
out there trying to influence
your results. Well, that's just
life. Even if no one was overtly
trying to influence results,
there still wouldn't be a "level" playing
field given due to the technical
biases that crawlers have, such
as favoring textual information
over graphical.
Coming
back to my PR model, those
in newspapers,
magazines and other type of
media have "editorial" results
just like search engines due.
PR firms and others try to influence
those results, and there's nothing
wrong with that. In fact, a
good PR person can be a great
asset in constructing a story,
if they provide the facts you
need. So, too, SEOs can and
do play a role with search engines.
Returning to Google,
the company has a long-standing
opposition to paid inclusion
as being unfair or as possibly
biasing search results. There
are also good reasons for them
to have this attitude, which
even some SEOs would agree with.
However, this doesn't mean that
there can't be other programs
that allow SEOs to take part
in the editorial process.
Google's
said before that it has internally
discussed whether it should
offer perhaps "webmaster
services," where site owners
might be able to pay for express
support in diagnosing editorial
programs. The company hasn't
moved forward with this, out
of fear in part that it might
leave it open to accusations
of selling out. I'd argue that
the opposite is true, and that
such a program would help Google's
PR, if not its results.
Search is
often declared the second most
popular online activity, after
e-mail. Do you sense that search
engines, Google in particular,
may become too powerful?
On
the web, I think it's hard
for people to
be "locked in" to
a particular web site. Nothing
forces people to use Google,
nor is it like there's only
one or two alternatives. There
are several good search alternatives
available. If Google were to
abuse the "power" it
has, you'll see people abandon
it and go elsewhere.
Certainly,
what we see with Google is
unprecedented.
In addition to being an incredibly
popular site of their own, they
also power the hugely popular
sites of AOL and Yahoo. No one
has had this type of search
volume, before. Having said
this, from a "reach" perspective,
Overture can still put you out
in front of a huge audience,
itself. That provides some counterbalance.
Overture is also
a good lesson about why things
seem to sometimes find their
own balance. This time last
year, Oveture was the king of
paid listings, with major partnerships
tied up with anyone who mattered.
Today, Google had made major
erosions in Overture's reach.
Similarly, this time next year,
it wouldn't be surprising to
see if Google has perhaps lost
some of the volume it commands.
For example, if Yahoo decides
to pursue a multple partner
strategy and carry results from
several crawlers, then Google
will see some pullback.
Yahoo itself is
also a great example. Should
Google be regulated as a utility,
because it is so powerful? People
said exactly the same thing
in 1997 about Yahoo, that it
could make or break businesses,
based on what it chooses to
list. Today, you find SEOs debating
whether it is even worth paying
the Yahoo submission fee.
Have
you been following the "PR
for sale" debate? What's
your take on this?
I think it's unfortunate
in general that people today
seem to think about links only
in terms of what Google might
like, rather than asking themselves
what's the intrinsic value behind
getting a link.
Think a link will
send you an audience you want
in and of itself? Then ask for
or pay for that link. Think
your visitors would want to
find a link for a particular
resource on your site? Then
install that link. These are
the key criteria of linking,
to me.
Following from
this, I see nothing wrong with
selling links and indeed Yahoo
and LookSmart both have businesses
that are all about this. They
are link networks, qualified
in that they have some strong
editorial policies about approval
in place. However, anyone selling
a link and primarily aiming
the sale around an intangible
benefit, like that it might
boost you on a search engine,
is likely to face problems.
What do you
see coming up? What will be
the important emerging trends
and technologies over the next
couple of years?
It's
long overdue for search engines
to do a better
job of looking at our queries
and delivering up more targeted
results. Did someone search
for something clearly news-related?
Then pump out mostly news search
results with a link to more
web-wide results, rather than
the opposite case that happens
now. Same thing for other situations.
Did I just search for "pictures
of madonna?" Then you ought
to give me image results, since
that's almost certainly what
I want. Did I ask for "buying
dvd players?" Then I may
want both commercial product
listings as well as informational
resources. How about ensuring
a good blend of both. I call
this "mindreading." Do
a better job at reading my mind,
understanding my intent, then
give me matches from an appropriate
database.
Another
change is personalization.
There are
ways for search engines to measure
what people are selecting from
results based on their demographics.
By using this data, you can
then give an 18-year-old man
living in the US different results
for something like "music" compared
to what you serve up to a 45-year-old
woman living in France. There
are privacy concerns, as well
as concerns that users have
that they'll "miss" out
because you are being so targeted.
Nevertheless, there are ways
to overcome these concerns and
provide better results.
For search engine
marketers, while free editorial
results will not go away, you're
going to continue to see the
cost of paid listings get more
expensive and probably results
weighted to more heavily favor
paid inclusion listings, especially
for commercial queries. So the
bad news is, expect to pay more.
The good news is, expect to
have more influence. If you're
being asked to underwrite more
of the cost of search, then
you have a bigger say in how
things operate. For example,
think you ought to be able to
better choose when and exactly
where your paid listings appear?
Speak loudly and demand that
attention be paid to your concerns.
No one wants their advertisers
upset.
What search
engine(s) do you use? If you
could build the ultimate search
engine, what would it be/do?
Like many people,
I tend to use Google as a first
choice. The Google Toolbar makes
it easy, and Google quite often
finds what I'm looking for.
If it doesn't, I often make
a next stop at AllTheWeb.com,
since it gives me a nice, clean
interface, a large catalog of
the web as well as great relevancy.
And, if I'm in search of a list
of things, I'll still pop over
to Yahoo to check out the directory
categories.
Having named these
players, I do get to the others,
as well. It's very common that
if I'm researching something
for a story, such as a problem
a reader will have, I'll be
firing up the same seach at
all the major players.
Those initial
choices I make also tend to
reflect my own habits and
preferences. Other people
may like other search engines,
which is great. Relevancy
can be subjective, and there's
a lot to be said about look-and-feel,
as well as features. Google
lacks auto-categorization,
something others I know rave
about finding at Vivisimo
and Teoma. And I personally
love that AllTheWeb, and now
HotBot, are allowing themselves
to be skinned. It's nice to
see that kind of personalization
happening.
Google has
just gone beta on their new
product search, Froogle. First
impressions?
It certainly
makes sense for them to do,
given that so many people
do product-oriented searching.
At the moment, it remains
feeling very much like the
beta product that it is. Sorting
by price is something that I'll
want to see, and I'm sure
it will come. In fact, I'm
sure we'll see
Google work all of its usual magic over the coming months to really reshape the service into something powerful. The real test will come
when the "shopping" tab goes up on the main Google site, or when
Google starts suggesting product search links for appropriate queries in the way it currently does for news content. That will begin pushing people into
the service, making it a possible powerhouse for online merchants.
</end>
Many thanks Danny.
What more is there to say, other
than that's it for the year.
More to come in 2003...
|
