In the book The Search author John Battelle describes Google as “a database of intentions.” If you prescribe to that classification, the Google tools I’m going to employ will provide some interesting insight into shopper intentions and how that information can be leveraged.  The first tool I’m going to use is Google Insights for Search.  Insights for Search is another Google Experiment, this time one that allows one to peer inside the volume of keyword (or phrase) searches over time and geographical regions.  Let’s see what we can learn.

What can Google tell us about Valentine’s Day shopping?

Our hypothesis will be that people are still shopping online, but they’re likely looking to get a bargain.  The hypothesis ins’t a stroke of genius, but the devil is in the details.  If we’re going to launch a campaign or put some copy on our homepage regarding our holiday deals, let’s use words that resonate with online shoppers.  Further, since we’re theoretically doing this exercise the week before the holiday, Pay-per-Click is a definite medium we would target.  We’d want to know not only what keywords we might want to focus on for our ads to display, but also what keywords to place in generalized ads to get Internet searcher’s attention.

Let’s take a look at the frequency of terms being searched upon in the United States over the past couple of years using Insights for Search.  The search phrases I’m going to take a look at are:

• Valentine’s Day
• Valentine’s Day roses
• Cheap Valentine’s Day gift
• Valentine’s Day specials
• Valentine’s deals
• Valentine’s discount

Search volume for “Valentine’s Day”

Let’s start by looking up a generalized term about the holiday to use as a baseline for interest overall around the topic over time.  The graph below shows search volume for “Valentine’s Day” from January of 2007 until February of 2009 in the United States.  To be sure we’re focused on shopping, we’ve restricted our inquiry to the “Shopping” category.   The February ‘09 data for this year, term and region is reported to the current week, but we’ll focus on the week before the holiday for all of our analysis.

• 2007: 60
• 2008: 48
• 2009: 53
  

Before we move forward, let’s be clear about what these numbers mean. The numbers on the graph do not allow us to understand the total number of searches for this term in the United States. I’ll let Google tell you what the numbers mean as opposed to paraphrasing:

The numbers on the graph reflect how many searches have been done for a particular term, relative to the total number of searches done on Google over time. They don’t represent absolute search volume numbers, because the data is normalized and presented on a scale from 0-100; each point on the graph is divided by the highest point, or 100. The numbers next to the search terms above the graph are summaries, or totals.

If I check the points on the graph, last week’s number (the week before Valentine’s Day) registers 60. The week before Valentine’s Day in ‘08 is lower, at 48, and that week in ‘07 clocked in at 53.  This shows an increase in the volume of shopping related searches for “Valentine’s Day” for the week before Valentine’s Day this year in the United States as compare to the previous two years.

For the purpose of this exercise, I’m also going to scale data to a 100 point scale when our results fail to do so to make comparisons easier.  Here’s what that will look like for the aforementioned data:

• 2007: 60 (100)
• 2008: 48 (80)
• 2009: 53 (88)

As above, when data is extrapolated to a 100 point scale I’ll include it in parenthesis.  Graph data will not be changed.

Not following the trend

So, we’ve established that the volume of searches for Valentine’s Day gifts the week before the holiday has increased considerably in comparison to the two previous years.  To help illustrate our point regarding the discount terms, I’m going to run an example non-discounted term: “Valentine’s Day roses.”

Search volume for “Valentine’s Day roses”

Below is our result.  Search volume is fairly close to 2008 levels, both of which years are lower than 2007.

• 2007: 62 (100)
• 2008: 43 (69)
• 2009: 42 (68)

So, what about the thrifty shopper?

Moving on to bargain hunting, let’s run the same time period but try some phrases that would show people searching with the intent of finding discounted Valentine’s Day gifts. After trying a few phrases and seeing volume increases that were generally aligned with the increase in searches for “Valentine’s Day,” I found several that also showed strong upticks, specifically around the idea of getting a bargain.

Search volume for “Cheap Valentine’s Day gift”

This first graph is for “Cheap Valentine’s Day gift.” For the weeks preceding Valentine’s day, 2007’s interest level is at 40, 2008’s is 36, and 2009 holds the top end (100). So, while shopping-related searches have increased for the term “Valentine’s Day,” searches for those looking for a cheap Valentine’s Day gift have also increased, but to a much more significant degree.

• 2007: 40
• 2008: 36
• 2009: 100

Let’s look for more terms and see if we can find higher variances while still reflecting intent.

Search volume: “Valentine’s Day specials”

Another term I thought that might indicate an intention to find a deal was the phrase “Valentine’s Day specials.” Again, the result shows the same trend.

• 2007: 31 (62)
• 2008: 28 (56)
• 2009: 50 (100)

Search volume: “Valentine’s deals”

Bingo. “Deals” seems to be a word that people are using far more when shopping for Valentine’s Day this year and looking for a bargain.  Do note that I dropped “Days” from the phrase as I wasn’t getting results, but felt “Valentine’s” would be enough of a qualifier.  Take a look:

• 2007: 19
• 2008: 29
• 2009: 100

Search volume: “Valentine’s discount”

“Valentine’s discount,” the last phrase I’m including, follows suit with a considerable uptick.

• 2007: 41
• 2008: 42
• 2009: 100

Do we have any actionable data yet?

Not really.  We still need more information to paint the full picture.  If we were going to use this information to understand linguistics and what words were being used more frequently when shopping online for Valentine’s Day compared to previous years, this data is helpful.  But, we really need to get a better idea of how much search volume we’re talking about.

If a phrase was searched on three times during the week before Valentine’s Day in 2008 and 10 times the week before Valentine’s Day this year, we’d see a huge volume increase year-over-year, but creating a marketing campaign based upon that information wouldn’t be the wisest move.

In my next post I’ll take what I’ve learned so far and leverage another of Google’s tools to show how this information could be used to make online marketing decisions.

Related posts:

1. Google AdWords keyword tool now providing search volume
2. Have you been getting Google keyword search volume right?
3. Android and SEO/SEM? Dream on.

After receiving a healthy dose of entries, I enlisted a few online marketers from different disciplines I work with to pick the winner.

Congratulations to Steve for the story he contributed regarding some suspiciously high PPC bills received by a credit union he works at for an unlikely phrase: “es sex.”  Steve, your iPod touch was ordered on the Apple Store online this evening and is en route to you.

Here’s Steve’s story in his own words:

I work in the marketing department of a mid-sized credit union. We hired a paid search firm out of Austin that had been recommended to us by another credit union in Dallas.

Our initial set-up was about $15K and our monthly spend was determined to be in the $25-30K range.

Shortly after kick off the firm provided us with a massive list of keywords/phrases to review and approve. Not having any real experience doing this we asked some questions about the list but trusted the firm knew what they were doing.

About two weeks after the launch of the program our webmaster noted some peculiar visitor data. We were getting a huge amount of traffic from the phrase “es sex”. Not surprising those visitors had a near 100% bounce rate.

When we contacted the agency they assured us they would look into it and get back to us. About a week later we still hadnt heard back from them but still saw the massive amounts of traffic coming to the credit unions website from that term.

About 23 days past the launch they called to tell us our budget had depleted quickly and we should consider increasing our spend the following month. When we demanded to see some reporting we found that nearly $8K had been spent to drive people to our site for the term “es sex”.

It turns out there is large credit union named Essex. When they did their keyword research that term came up and they decided to target it. They were never able to explain exactly how Essex became es sex or how the ads they were running were even relative enough to the term to cause so many people to click through to our site but needless to say we refused to pay for their mistake and dumped them for other similarly stupid mistakes about two months later.

Thanks again to everyone who participated, and look for another contest in a month or two.  I’ll be posting a few of the other entries that finished close behind Steve’s in the upcoming days; hopefully you’ll enjoy them as much as I did!

Related posts:

1. Marketing stupidity wins an iPod Touch
2. Communication and follow-through key to SEO success
3. What Google tells me about Valentine’s Day shopping – Part 1

Microsoft recently announced Live cashback, a program that rewards those who search on their Live search engine and consequently buy a product from one of several hundred merchants affiliated with the program. It’s fairly straightforward. Merchants are in essence placing cost-per-action (aka pay-per-action) advertisements for which they only pay Microsoft if there is a sale. They do not pay for a visitor clicking or merely viewing their advertisement. Of that pay-per-action fee, Microsoft is only retaining a small amount, instead passing the bulk of the money collected back to the consumer.

Microsoft’s Desperate Position

My initial response was that this was a desperation move on the heels of a thwarted acquisition attempt of Google. Most of the negative commentary on Live search is based on the premise that because Microsoft lost out on its Yahoo acquisition attempt that they are now relegated to having to pay customers to use their Live search engine. And, to be clear, there is something desperate about Microsoft’s situation in search. They’ve been at this for quite some time now and their progress has been underwhelming. As it currently stands, here’s the lay of the land:

Search Market Share – April, 2008 – ComScore
1. Google: 61.6%
2. Yahoo: 20.4%
3. Microsoft: 9.1%
4. AOL: 4.6%
5. ASK: 4.3%

But, insofar as Live cashback itself, it may be a response to a desperate situation, but the program shouldn’t be cast in a negative light solely because it is a response to a difficult challenge for Microsoft.

Live Cashback and consumers

If the average Joe can get a few percent of what they spend back when making a purchase (assuming they know Live cashback exists), I’d argue they’d at the very least consider it. Will they actually do it? That I cannot predict. If users do make that switch over to Live, even if only when in a purchasing mindset, the needle moves in Microsoft’s favor on the back of a clear value proposition.

Live Cashback and advertisers

The other side of the coin is the advertisers. Over on Google, merchants place AdWords ads for which they pay when the ad is merely clicked upon. With Microsoft’s cashback program, the advertiser is getting a guaranteed ROI. They are only paying when a sale is made. The advertising investment has no risk.

A few participating merchants and their that caught my eye include Zappos.com (9% Cashback), Barnes & Noble (6% Live Cashback), and Footlocker (15% Live Cashback).

Will Cashback ultimately work?

For the program to ultimately work, consumers have to find value when they try the service. That requires having as many merchants as possible participating, and preferably those who are already top shopping destinations online. For merchants to want to participate, they’ll want to see search volume, which is what Microsoft doesn’t have an impressive inventory of.

Who knows. Microsoft Live Cashback could be dead-on and drive a self-perpetuating cycle of increased search traffic enticing merchants which in-turn drives more search traffic. If everything is spot on, that cycle will still move slowly. One thing that Google has online that Microsoft does not is incredible brand affinity. And, even if there is a perfect storm for Microsoft, thinking that Google will stand by and watch it all happen without doing something to slow or reverse such a cycle down is naive.

Could Cashback just fail? Absolutely.

For Microsoft, having a larger search inventory would be a great place to start. Yahoo anyone?

Related posts:

1. Microsoft retracts bid for Yahoo!
2. Microsoft to Google: Our lawyer thinks your lawyer is wrong
3. Google pay-per-action for AdWords

• Competitor trademarks cannot be used to initiate the display of AdWords ads (you cannot use a defensible trademark as a keyword to bid upon)
• Competitor trademarks cannot be used in AdWords adcopy

That was my initial thought. Then I thought it through a bit more. There are trademarks that would make this very difficult to adhere to (Target, Southwest, etc.). This would be a nightmare to monitor. How could they do it?

The answer: they don’t. Well, sort of.

A review of the AdWords Help Center validated the sum of my thinking. From the AdWords Help Center:

When we receive a complaint from a trademark owner, we only investigate the use of the trademark in ad text. If the advertiser is using the trademark in ad text, we will require the advertiser to remove the trademark and prevent them from using it in ad text in the future. Please note that we will not disable keywords in response to a trademark complaint.

So you can bid on a trademarked term, you just can’t use it in the ad text. Wow. That is pretty biased towards Google’s best interest. It creates bidding wars. Those trademarked brands must hate the policy. Can you imagine a Target vs. Wal-Mart keyword bidding war? United Airlines vs. Southwest Airlines? With Google’s (undisclosed) take as the auction-based ad broker, that must be an incredibly profitable policy.

Well, those types of wars don’t happen for the big boys, apparently that’s just reserved for the mom-and-pop shops. Here’s just a few examples where the policy is suspiciously absent:

Search term: target – AdWords ads: none
Search term: united – AdWords ads: none
Search term: southwest – AdWords ads: none

Doesn’t exactly seem fair, does it?

Of interest elsewhere on the web:

• AdWords Trademark Complaint Procedure
• Pop Goes the Trademark? Competitive Advertising on the Internet – Shidler Journal of Law, Commerce+Technology
• American Airlines Sues Google Over Keyword Ads – Technology & Marketing Law Blog
• Will You Be Sued Over Your Ad Copy Usage – Search Engine Land

Related posts:

1. Google AdWords keyword tool now providing search volume
2. Are these social AdWords ads?
3. AdWords testing increased relevance for advertisers

Ever wish you could show your ads more often to a specific group like women aged 25-34? Want to see how your ads perform with certain demographic groups and then adjust your bids accordingly?

We’re excited to introduce the new demographic bidding feature from AdWords. Demographic bidding helps you display your ads to specific gender and age group audiences on some sites in the Google content network, giving you more control over who your audience is and greater insight into how your ads perform with certain demographic groups.

AdWords advertisers in the U.S. and U.K. can apply to participate in the beta program.

Related posts:

1. Google pay-per-action for AdWords
2. Google AdWords on trademarks: Who wants to know?
3. Google AdWords keyword tool now providing search volume

The new ads are for Google AdSense for content sites. AdSense publishers can decide if they want to participate in the program or not. Participants will be able to review details of the advertisements which will appear on their site and decide if the ads are appropriate for their site or not.

One would assume that the amount paid for an actual conversion will be far higher than what one gets for a click under the current PPC model-especially as the amount will be able to be determined by the Advertiser, setting up a affiliate-like relationship, brokered by Google.

The program introduces new challenges for those managing a web site with the ads. With PPC, the user had little control over what went on their site and only had to rely on ad copy driving a click. Now, they’ll have to consider if the web site the user will visit as a result of a click has the potential of closing the deal.

Update: Google’s Inside AdWords blog has a post specifically about the Pay-Per-Action beta.

Related posts:

1. AdWords testing increased relevance for advertisers
2. Live cashback a desperate move?
3. Making money how?