Google's Goals and Where are We Heading?

[MrFewkes]

I whine alot about google - I know this - and its true to say that I shouldnt whine and make too much noise.

I wanted therefore to take something I view as a problem (and normally cry about on here) and take a logical view of it instead, and see what people think.

Maybe my worries are unfounded, maybe they are not.

Since my sales are tanked anyway - even though im number 1 for my target phrase, maybe I shouldnt even be bothered writing this? I dont know.

Over the last few (maybe even 7) years, ive seen a trend towards shifting sites further and further down the page. Some of the points here - I may be wrong on, but some I am correct on, and some I will have missed.

1. The addition of "Go North" Adwords sites - originally two at the top of the serps.
2. The addition of a third site in the go north section.
3. The expansion of these adwords sites in the top of the page to include more links.
4. The expansion of these adwords sites in the top of the page to include "reviews".
5. The inclusion of "shopping results for...." in the natural serp section - 3 sites always at or near the top - but with a tendency towards allowing one or two sites to remain above them.
6. The inclusion of persistent non-google owned properties at the top of the serps or near the top - (primary sites are) Ebay, Amazon, Wikipedia
7. The inclusion of persistent google owned property at or near the top of the serps - Youtube.
8. Font changes in the adwords enlarging the gaps between adwords sites in the top section.
9. Sitelinks in natural listings.
10. A black toolbar at the top of the page.
11. Multi-line sitelinks in the adwords section at the top of the page.
12. Bullet pointed serps.

The thing is - that I want this post to only focus on the shunting down lower and lower of the natural serps. Each one of the above pushed the natural section of the serps lower and lower down the page.

Maybe Ive got a few bits and pieces wrong above - well more to the point - slightly inaccurate - but I doubt it. Maybe people here could even expand the list?

So whats my point?

Well, I am not addressing any updates, such as Panda, I am speculating that google, with the above 12 changes are deliberatly and purposefully shunting the natural serps out of the picture over time with a view to enhancing the clickthrough rate on the adwords ads.

This isnt a google bash thread - I am asking where people think it may stop.

I predict the following in the near future......

1. Another adwords ad at the top.
2. Gradual reduction in the number of natural serps from 10 (I think ive already seen a serp with only 8).
3. A thickening of the toolbar section at the top.
4. A further increase in the amount of information given for individual sites.

I cant think of anymore at this time.

What do others think of all this? Is it just me panicking and seeing the gateway to the web closing off to anyone who isnt paying google?

How long before a number 1 spot only gives a dribbling of traffic because it is well below the fold? Will this ever happen?

What are others thoughts on this - what I percieve - "tactic" of googles to throttle traffic to natural serps and drive more and more to the paid listings?

Anything to be concerned with? Or as I say - even in light of the above 12 points - just me panicking?

[tedster]

There's no doubt that you've documented a good part of how Google has monetized web search - which is their right and even their mandate as a publicly held company. And it certainly is painful when a #1 organic ranking produces only a fraction of the traffic that it once did.

My own take on "where it will stop" is that the final goal is NOT to push out all search results for businesses that are not paying Google. However, there is a kind of business model that is suffering particularly hard with all these changes - the affiliate site model where one entrepreneur churns out one site after another in market after market, using "SEO" to get traffic.

Google wants to see a different kind of business ranking - not this particular type which has definitely proliferated. This doesn't mean that I see affiliate marketing as doomed by Google. Only that the multi-site, "just good enough to get by" method is doomed.

Going back many years at Pubcon the signs were already there in some of Matt Cutts' comments in Site Review sessions. One guy was running 47 sites, for example - and Matt very pointedly stated that one person cannot maintain that many QUALITY sites.

[Planet13]

Regarding where it will stop:

google will continue to monetize (i.e., push down organic listings) for as long and as far as they can until THE MARKETPLACE TELLS THEM NOT TOO.

And by the marketplace, I mean google's users. Once google starts to see a decline in marketshare, they will start to pull back until they can find that happy median between number of visitors and maximum profit per visitor.

If bing or another engine starts to make a serious push toward grabbing more and more marketshare, then maybe there will be some changes to the layout of the SERPs.

I am not holding my breath...

[AlyssaS]

^^ And the reason G is able to do this is because there are just as many ads on Bing - three at the top, two at the bottom of the SERPs, ads in the right hand column, shopping results within teh serps. I think it was Bing who pioneered the whole shopping result thing ( please correct me if I'm wrong).

People arn't going to switch from G to Bing because of the ad layout, because they'll get more of the same, and sometimes just more!

[walkman]

Googles Goals and Where are We Heading?

You have to convince Google that they are making money from you or they will lose unless they rank you. Otherwise, you are toast if you are in big money keywords. Even content is ignored by Google, AFAIK, and it started on the second Panda. Bing also uses 'user engagements' and they respond to it almost instantly so it's very, very easy to see Google's blatant lies. Only when people get their internal e-mails you can see their lying, greedy faces.
[law.com...]

Google now has lost even the veneer of caring, they just don't care, unless it's their earnings. Just ask Larry, "the idealist" that "just wants to change the world without focusing on money." [bbc.co.uk...]

IMO, they cannot add any more obvious ads but they will continue to add their Book search, G+, Local, Hotels, and other Google properties out of place in SERPS to promote their properties. And they will continue to manipulate organic search in the guise of Panda and other "enhancements to benefit the user," er the shareholder. Google already sends much less visitors to our sites than other SEs so they are reaching a breaking point, manipulation is all they have left. They can do it with a wink and a nod and not even risk jail like their CEO did with the illegal pharma ads, so it's less risky and much more rewarding. Google lost over 5% market share this year, yet their earnings grew by 30%-40% and I think they have made peace with that. Let's just take as much as we can, while we can. FTC and EU are knocking at their door so they have a time limit as well.

Remember: all G has is search, so they will milk it to pay for Motorolas and for the "free" products. And they have to further manipulate SERPS to push their substandard products, like G+. You already see the picture on certain results...if that person has a G+. They also told Forbes that unless sites add G+ buttons their rankings will take a hit (story disappeared quite fast and suspiciously [raventools.com...] --just an image so I hope the link is OK ). The story that search, Google's main jewel, is separate is laughable at best. It's separate just the Windows team added "what's best for the user" in the 1990's.

So it's going to be a bad few years for most site-owners, Google wants us to duke it out in adwords and may the "best" win. The Vince update and Panda sealed that. Google has to worry about adwords to be relevant, since only a small percentage click on organic terms anyway for many $$ sectors.

[MrSavage]

There is a general theme here lately that has me refraining from calling a spade a spade. It's always like walking on egg shells. I have to ask myself am I being to negative about Google to make this comment? I can't and essentially refrain from bothering posting because it's almost like a need to screen my comments even before I make them.

So can I make an honest comment or should I edit my thoughts and post that edited version?

This is where it's heading.

-people have pointed out many times here that to deal with the shopping results and youtube listings, what's stopping anyone from getting their videos and shopping links in there? Open an account, create the content and maybe you show up in those listings.

-nobody cares about organic traffic and whether that dries up for webmasters. There are enough people who believe that it's pay to play and the internet should not be any different. Just visit the Google webmaster forum and you can read about how ignorant and bogus it is to expect organic traffic in the first place. This has EVERYTHING to do with organic traffic. If you take the perspective that relying on organic traffic is pathetic, narrow minded, unintelligent, etc, then there is no story here. The collective "shoulder shrug". I get that, but I see the true issue being in the starvation theory. Like building a car that runs well, but has one bad piece in it that's going to fail. That one piece is controlled by the same people that make the car. Yes you can get that piece to fix your car, but it's going to cost you. I just don't see how any government could ignore a situation similar to that if indeed it's taking place. I just don't think the Adwords revenue is peaking just yet. As it grows, I would hope somebody might actually clue in.

-Google will continue to move forward on making money the best way they can. It's only government intervention that could look at cause and effect of what they are doing. Is the government smart enough to know how search algo's work? Fact is it's all one big secret isn't it. Why would Google give up those secrets? So if they post on the home search page a link to their new phone, new laptop, new tv, etc, there are those among us who are okay with that.

-If you are in a competitive topic, you're dead. Google appears to be drawing it's own conclusions from your search term. The days of Google taking your search phrase literally are gone. So if you want to know about "blue widget with pink stripes", the site that is the giant, and is in the widget subjects, will crush any webmaster with a topic specific site. People may argue that point with me, but I would venture that they are in some cozy little niche where the site with pro writing staff are not participating in. You can search with Google using quotes and get more target results, but if you don't use quotes, you're going with a generic giant website which covers that subject, but not specifically an expert in that specific topic.

So in closing, their goal is to make money. Cutts is there to ensure quality. It's painfully obvious to me how those two objective cross paths. Sure Cutts is honest about his goals and intentions. It just so happens when he's tightened that "quality noose", the webmasters who depended on organic traffic are in the process of being choked to death. Refer back to the point that nobody gives a S about your or my organic traffic loss.

What you are talking about is the corporate way. Grow, expand, and make more money. With a beast like Google, it's only public perception and bad publicity that will quell the trends that you mention. As mentioned it's only loss of marketshare that will cause a reaction. Then again, if they lose market share but rake in tons more money, who the F cares from Google about losing market share? Higher profits is key right?

The way I see success in Google is ultimately to pay for an ad that will get me at the top of the SERPS. It's just that easy. I'm a bit more cynical at this point.

[Whitey]

Only that the multi-site, "just good enough to get by" method is doomed.

Going back many years at Pubcon the signs were already there in some of Matt Cutts' comments in Site Review sessions. One guy was running 47 sites, for example - and Matt very pointedly stated that one person cannot maintain that many QUALITY sites.

I like this observation. It kind of puts a line in the sand of what's past and what's the future.

Large affiliate networks are under the pump. Indeed most enterprises that i'm knowledgeable about have upwards of 5-10k of SEO affiliates. In the context of what Matt Cutts said about one individual with 47 sites , the same applies on a larger scale higher up the chain to companies with affiliate SEO networks. They can't all be quality.

So SEO affiliate distribution tactics are being turned on their heads, especially for large sites which are finding it hard to adapt with unique,innovative and sustainable content improvements.

Although this thread isn't about Panda , the early stages of the future direction of Google at high level are being communicated through it. If only 14% of searches were effected, imagine how many would have been affected if they had put it into full throttle over the same sites - 30% ? And that's just for starters.

To me, that means 30% of current websites are under severe threat of extinction or demotion, unless they apply greater social, technical and content differentiators as signals to Google.

It's worth reflecting on Google's Eric Schmidt statement in 2008 :

"Brands are the solution, not the problem," Eric Schmidt said. "Brands are how you sort out the cesspool. " [webmasterworld.com...]

The other direction which i see as being ramped up, is Google Local. For years YELP was dying and small business didn't take the internet sufficiently seriously and revenues in paper directories were declining to a standstill. Now Google is clutching onto a major revenue growth stream which is strongly influenced by devices. Google has to work with this, to be in the game and will use it's search position to allow greater detail and components in content to mitigate competition that it's partners cannot otherwise match.

The current format of local listing in many categories has been clumsy for some time, and clearly conflicts with current organic SERP's. I see Google some day, getting this right , perhaps through the better use of it's own filtering to reduce the number of results to being more highly relevant and blended better on the page.

So i see a very interesting future, no less dynamic than the past

[nomis5]

"Brands are the solution, not the problem," Eric Schmidt said. "Brands are how you sort out the cesspool. "

I looked back at that thread (from Whitey above) and it seems what Schmidt said at the time truly has now been implemented in Google. He meant it!

There are two ways to tackle this, either become a brand or seek out niches where there are no well known brands.

Becoming a brand, at least in the eyes of Google, may not be all that impossible to achieve. The way I view it is that Schmidt / Google believe that the internet is a cesspool of mainly rubbish sites. True, it is, and those rubbish sites often get to top of the SERPS, above far more relevant and informed sites.

This indicates that Google has very limited ability to determine what is a cesspool site and what is not. They have chosen to crack a walnut with an atom bomb and simply pick "brand" sites over and above non-brand sites.

This is surprising because I always expected the technical ability of Google to be able to discern "value" sites in a rather more accurate manner. But obviously they cannot do this.

So the same must apply to how they identify "brand" sites. It's probably a very primitive and automated process. So get thinking how to identify your site as a brand site to an automated, primitive search engine.

Always include your brand name in the page title, populate your brand name around internet at every opportunity, produce a newsletter, produce a moderated forum, maybe move away from getting url links to getting mentions that include your brand name. There must be hundreds of easy to implement way of promoting your brand.

I've certainly done this over the last six months and it's the way forward for me. I am no big brand but my major website is maybe just big enough to convince Google that it is. And the wonder of it all is that if all works, I probably will become a brand.

[MrFewkes]

Great and really informative posting here thus far.

I wanted to just add though - that brands are not the answer to the problem which I originally proposed.

If google allows bidding on brands, then no matter how powerful your brand - in terms of the serp - you will still be pushed below the fold.

In any eventuality - if you have an incredibly strong brand, then there is no need for google. People will find you via other methods like entering your domain in the address part of the browser.

One view could be - that big brands are not the solution for google - big brands are - infact - the devaluing of the usefulness of google.

Take walmart - do you think they rely on google to survive?
In the UK - take argos - they dont rely on google to survive at all. They use a multi-channel approach.

We all should.

I think my business model is pretty much dead now or soon will be - this is...

No Affiliate sites
Import Product
Set up website to sell product
Get customers through search engines
Take payment
Ship product

Well - its dead where the SE costs such as adwords eat all the profit.

[HuskyPup]

There's some really good interesting stuff here, keep it coming.

IMHO the wild west Internet days died during the 2008 crash, sure there are still some sites that come along and boom but for the majority (I'm taking an educated evaluation here from our experiences) I feel that Joe Public Consumer's attitude has changed enormously:

In the UK - take argos - they dont rely on google to survive at all. They use a multi-channel approach.

Precisely, I do the same, as a main supplier/producer I want JP to go to my stockists, sure they can find out information on my sites however I steer them to country stockists who in turn point them to stockists in their local areas.

I am not a drop ship operation, my stuff is heavy, very heavy, and I have noticed this change in enquiries over the past few years. Whereas people used to make direct enquiries to my main stockists they soon learnt that buying local was as competitive since that retailer bought in small truck loads thereby saving lots of haulage costs.

Quite simply we are seeing JP is looking but not enquiring yet we are busier than ever supplying our wholesale stockists.

Is my experience anything like buying drop ship electronics, books, etc? For me definitely so, when I want new pcs/laptops/netbooks I go to half a dozen reliable suppliers direct, Google doesn't even get a look in, I know what I want, check them out and if the deal is right then rarely I don't look any further.

In the Argos situation I think I get at least 2 e-mail shots a week and I do occasionally buy from them, likewise ebuyer, simplyacer and several more.

@MrFewkes - Your new business model is what many have been doing for years, it's well-proven and should be profitable, the problem is finding the right products and you certainly don't want mine...weight is the killer!

Another good business type of model for lighter-weight products is ebay. I know of many people who only use ebay and nothing else...gee, I even bought precisely what I wanted off it the other day, the closest a "regular" web site could get to the product price was 3X as much!

It's difficult, we all know that, branding is likely to be even more important and the way Google is going, even more difficult to do at low cost.

I wonder if my UK attitudes are similar or totally different to North America?

[MrFewkes]

Huskypup - that is my business model of over 2 years - not new!
:)
Prior to that I was dropship and / or affiliate.
(Just for info though)

[HuskyPup]

MrFewkes - And you're struggling for sales?

FWIW I have noticed a huge drop in UK SERPs referrals for my .co.uk site even though it ranks extremely well ... there just does not seem to be any great consumer confidence here unless one's an ifan or suchlike. There are lots of conflicting and contradictory statements on a weekly, almost daily, basis and I get the feeling that although JP is feeling the squeeze they're also being very careful how, where, when and why they're spending money.

It made me laugh last week after doom and gloom figures were released showing savings up $5bn and top bosses' bonuses up 187% since 2002.

[indyank]

FWIW I have noticed a huge drop in UK SERPs referrals for my .co.uk site even though it ranks extremely well

I am hearing a lot of these complaints these days and they are all true. But are you folks sure that you rank #1? There was a huge push towards localization this year and I am not even sure whether people can check their rankings anymore.

[HuskyPup]

But are you folks sure that you rank #1?

Insofar as I am concerned I'm 99.99% as sure as it is possible to be, I use several browsers and delete cookies on a regular basis and for localised searches my sister's business dominates the local region as well as doing well nationally, search referrals and traffic are all steady or rising yet her retail enquiries are at their lowest level in years.

Meanwhile I have stockists who do ok in the SERPs, nothing spectacular, but are flat out and screaming for new stocks, however these companies have diversified their advertising and do not even bother with AdWords nowadays whereas at one time they were regular advertisers.

Yep, they've gone back to regular snail mailings, phone canvassing and plain old company rep visits.

Naturally I have to write a caveat here in that I supply specialised construction products, not run-of-the-mill consumer products.

[scooterdude]

perhaps the era of vast free traffic from SE's is coming to an end as they increasingly dsevelope the means to fully monetise what they see as there traffic.

may well be that we all have to become like "argos" and appeal directly to the buying public

This might well have the effect of leveling the playing field a bit

Joy for the TV and newspapers an other traditional media as our money is redirected to traditional advertising rather than feeding our former "mate" :)

who knows

I shall try observe with interest, unless i discover something more intereting ,, like Celebrity big brother :)

[viggen]

Where are We Heading?

sooner or later to a point where we no longer care about Googles traffic.

[HuskyPup]

sooner or later to a point where we no longer care about Googles traffic.

I have this feeling that, in the UK anyway, this is already happening. It's only from watching what's happening on the High Street, talking to business friends about their plans and things in general. People do genuinely seem to be more concerned about their local facilities and businesses surviving and not being wiped out...these are very interesting times.