Big brands do not have the upper hand - Matt Cutts

[Whitey]

Big brands cannot do whatever they want. They look at value add, etc. Faster, better, better UI, content, etc.

It is weird, Google does take action on big sites and big sites often do not like to talk about it. So it happens a lot. [seroundtable.com...]
Live blog interview with Matt Cutts.

How are members seeing those quality signals playing out in the SERP's compared to "smaller" brands.

[Whitey]

They look at value add, etc. Faster, better, better UI, content, etc.

Positively applied to niche's, how many folks can see opportunities to beat brands within these words?

[backdraft7]

Saying

big brands have an advantage because GOOGLE NEEDS THEM

is stating the obvious, but does that presume that Google doesn't need small businesses? No.

To think Google doesn't need small businesses is ridiculous. For every 10,000 big brands, there are 10,000,000 small businesses. To ignore that market would be foolish.

If you are talking the games they are playing in the organic results, perhaps, but so far I've seen little 'solid' evidence that Google is playing favorites with the organic results, (if they were, the FTC would be closing in) but when your site loses, it's easy to think you're being personally persecuted. Small businesses are a huge part of the global economy and without them, Google would be severely limiting their audience and their grasp in the internet.

I can assure you that Google treats even the smallest business owner like royalty, especially (and not surprisingly) when you call the Adwords team. It is a resource I intend to to use heavily in the future...by choice, or not.

If Google indeed doesn't need or want small businesses, then I (and probably thousands of others) have a great idea for a new small business search engine.

[randle]

As I understand what Matt Cutts is saying here, it's that the algorithm does not directly promote "brands", as in building a list of brands and then boosting those sites. However, they are doing their best to measure the qualities that make a good brand, and the algorithm does reward those qualities.

Theres a reason when Tedster speaks, people should listen. Google has been in love with the traits "Brand" sites give off for some time now and its no secret.

Eric Schmidt said this in 2008:

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

"Brand affinity is clearly hard wired," he said. "It is so fundamental to human existence that it's not going away. It must have a genetic component."

The only thing worth thinking and talking about now is what are these traits, how does the algorithm reward them and where does my site stand in relation to these traits.

It is what it is - Its got nothing to do with size, or Adwords expenditure, or Google trying to stomp out the little guy. In their quest to cleanse the results of what they dont consider quality, and promote what they do, they have studied and essentially reversed engineered the traits of "Brand".

Personally I think its a crutch that resulted in to many great informational sites being pushed so far down no one can ever find them anymore. - But thats just a personal observation from someone who has spent way to many years looking at search engines and has allowed nostalgia to cloud his thinking.

Just get to work thinking about the concept of "Brand" and what types of traits sites like that give off.

[alhasanalhusein]

I agree to this post topic. But could there be a hidden agenda to this?

[turbocharged]

It is what it is - Its got nothing to do with size, or Adwords expenditure, or Google trying to stomp out the little guy. In their quest to cleanse the results of what they dont consider quality, and promote what they do, they have studied and essentially reversed engineered the traits of "Brand".

I would have to disagree with this statement.

In the absence of an algorithmic solution to deal with webspam sufficiently, Google has simply dialed up the value of brand as a ranking factor. This is backed up by the prevalence of domain crowding and the lack of diversity across many keyword queries. Furthermore, brand is now routinely outranking relevance in many buyer and non-buyer queries.

When all else fails algorithmically, as it did, Google hit the panic button and reverted to giving brands more preferred organic positioning throughout the SERPS. This gives the end user listings that they can at least trust in the absence of relevance.

Since Adwords is such a large part of Google's earnings, it is foolish to believe they do not have financial models in place to gauge the impact of each and every change they make to their algorithm. Especially for the top data mining company in the world, this type of analysis should be expected before any change hits datacenters. However, as more paid ads/verticals push organic listings beneath the fold, I suspect Google's financial models have changed to reflect the decreased real estate/importance that organic listings now have.

[backdraft7]

This gives the end user listings that they can at least trust in the absence of relevance.

+1

[BaseballGuy]

Just get to work thinking about the concept of "Brand" and what types of traits sites like that give off.

Like millions upon millions of unsolicited backlinks/etc coming from "fans" on various social media sites due to giveaways and promotions?

How is the "wedding photographer" in Las Vegas supposed to compete with the huge corporate casinos for that above keyword?

Even though the small "mom and pop" Las Vegas wedding photographer might offer a MUCH better wedding experience than the big brand corporate casinos....

I rest my case.

[ColourOfSpring]

Even though the small "mom and pop" Las Vegas wedding photographer might offer a MUCH better wedding experience than the big brand corporate casinos....

In many, many niches it's often the case that smaller companies offer a better service than bigger companies, simply because they are small. They can offer a more personal and "bespoke" service. You normally deal with the expert who's actually doing the service you're paying them for, not some "account manager". You often pay LESS with a smaller company (they have less overheads) when it comes to SERVICES. Not all experts want to grow their small business into a big one, even though they could if they took everything to its logical limits. I'd argue that most experts / enthusiasts prefer to remain small because they enjoy their work and don't want to manage people. In the UK alone (where I'm from), there are - according to the Federation of Small Businesses - 4.8 million small businesses in this relatively small country. For many, a small business allows them to do what they want to do professionally (and that's why you often get the better service). What I'm trying to say here is - being small isn't a bad thing, it's often a good thing.

I'm sure Google know all of the above, but it's simply impossible for them to "get under the skin" of business and truly separate good businesses from bad ones - they simply cannot do that. And so they raised the white flag, and decided to use the brand signal to play it safe. List big brands and your customers (your searchers) are probably going to be OK with their choices. You're not giving them the best, but you're keeping them safe from rogue companies (generalisation, of course). They'll come back to Google because their experiences haven't been bad.

I think what we will see over the coming months and years is that "might is right" - bigger companies will out-muscle smaller ones for most of the keywords - both in organic and certainly in Adwords. It will be just like the physical high streets where chain stores rule.

Someone ought to come up with a small business search engine...

[netmeg]

Someone ought to come up with a small business search engine...

And it will get spammed to death too.

[backdraft7]

@netmeg - naturally! If you made a search engine for Chimpanzee's they would use it "as designed" and for the most part, not try to research, investigate or otherwise game the system (except for shoving bananas in the cooling fan vent of their monkey PC). It takes a human to really mess things up for the rest of humanity.

[ColourOfSpring]

A search engine for small businesses may or may not be necessary in 5 years time. If it is necessary, someone will build one. Business is all about filling a need.

[Whitey]

How is the "wedding photographer" in Las Vegas supposed to compete with the huge corporate casinos for that above keyword?

Compete : Very well I would have thought. If they are passionate, committed and good at what they do that's the first step. The second is build a business reputation with a good marketing mix - leather on street to partners that can benefit from these services, that also have to compete; other e-channels ; PR amongst a tight circle of influencers etc etc

Corporate : Doesn't have the commitment - rarely will. Doesn't care about it's close relationships with customers in service. It's supermarket stuff. Strengthen your niche.

Keyword : Why worry. There's plenty of long tail and lot's of people warm to different angles and propositions. That's how the others compete I presume. If Google keeps churning out cookie cutter results of poor quality in certain niches, sooner or later customer satisfaction will erode and switch to alternatives. Users will find you, if you are good and offer complimentary things.

On the greater scale, there's often more activity on the outside of a brand than within it. Continually look for the weakness' to exploit.

When you've found that, promote it amongst your close circle of influencers and go from there.

The Google <NEED> Brand <NEED> Google loop, is highly dependent on big volumes and flexibilty to new distribution appliances, content and different ways of combining to serve that up. Niche can deal with this in a lot of instances.

Then all you have to be concerned about is SEO enablement as a minority effort in the overall scheme of things.

[diberry]

Seems to me we're not all talking about exactly the same things in this thread. I think we can agree that having an offline rep causes people to search for your brand by name in Google, and what they want is your site, so whether you're a small site known to 25 people who met you at a party or you're BMW, Google's going to return your site. This is totally democratic on Google's part.

It's also beyond debate that richer websites can spend more on factors that the rest of us may not be able to address so well, and when those factors become the deciding ones, they win. Again, Google's treating everyone the same in this case.

It's the lifting of penalties where I question if Google is treating every site the same way. Remember how some big corporate sites came back from Panda penalties very quickly while other big but not corporate sites never did? Presumably, this is because the sites that recovered were able to spend more on making changes to please Google. EXCEPT, why didn't they get slapped with the "you're making too many changes, probably trying to game us, therefore we hate you" penalty like so many others did? It DOES seem to me like some sites are getting a pass. I mean, how were obvious, pure content farms EVER able to overcome Panda? It shouldn't even have been possible, if Panda's purpose was to lower the content farms.

So that's where I wonder if Google's really treating everyone the same. I also wonder if the search team is indeed treating everyone the same, but other powers within the Google company are thwarting this for other business reasons.

[ColourOfSpring]

It's the lifting of penalties where I question if Google is treating every site the same way. Remember how some big corporate sites came back from Panda penalties very quickly while other big but not corporate sites never did?

Because helping the little guys doesn't scale. Just too many of us - too many false positives. Too many buckets of water to bail out. Reacting instantly out of the blocks to Big News Stories like BBC or Interflora or Digg is not only easy for Google, but it's an opportunity to look responsive and on the ball.

[Simsi]

It's the lifting of penalties where I question if Google is treating every site the same way...So that's where I wonder if Google's really treating everyone the same

A good post in general diberry but... where a penalty is applied to a brand that is very well known and obviously people trust and use, it's an easy decision to remove the penalty once they comply with the guidelines. It might not be so easy to decide if the intentions of an unknown brand are actually 100% legit. The brands have earned that right IMO.

[diberry]

where a penalty is applied to a brand that is very well known and obviously people trust and use, it's an easy decision to remove the penalty once they comply with the guidelines. It might not be so easy to decide if the intentions of an unknown brand are actually 100% legit. The brands have earned that right IMO.

I see where you're coming from here, but disagree in the bigger picture. Google should not be trying to discern intent. They should be ranking content. And while trust should be a factor, Google must also realize that many brands have gained "trust" merely because they were at the top of the SERPs and people tend to assume the top sites must be quality. You get a feedback loop happening there, and again it gives some sites an unfair "trust" advantage based on their ability to spend a LOT of money manipulating the algorithm... which is not a genuine indicator that readers trust them.

That's where I think Google could do better. I think they should be focusing on quality indicators, not spam indicators, and "trust" should be factored against whether these big brand sites got big strictly for ranking high at Google or for other reasons.

ETA: there are indicators Google is moving more toward quality indicators, but at the same time getting more aggressive about perceived spam intent. The two directions don't go together for me. Frankly, as a reader, if a spammy site produces really useful content, please serve it up to me. And if a branded quality site reproduces crapola from other domains that probably was never any good to begin with, please stick it on page 400.

[netmeg]

Google should not be trying to discern intent.

That ship has sailed, bigtime.

[Whitey]

Frankly, as a reader, if a spammy site produces really useful content, please serve it up to me. And if a branded quality site reproduces crapola from other domains that probably was never any good to begin with, please stick it on page 400.

... so >

Matt Cutts at SMX Advanced 2012 : Is Penguin a Penalty?

No, neither Penguin nor Panda are manual penalties, Cutts said. He explained that Penguin was designed to tackle “the stuff in the middle;” between fantastic, high quality content and spam. Panda was all about spam, but the need for Penguin arose from this middle ground [searchenginewatch.com...]
Middle ground and SPAM : Brands don't always have great UI, fantastic content, & great backlink profiles - or do they?

Matt Cutts in 2009 speaks of not thinking of "brands" rather favouring "trust , authority, reputation, expertise in a niche" [youtube.com...]

...we actually came up with a classifier to say, okay, IRS or Wikipedia or New York Times is over on this side, and the low-quality sites are over on this side. And you can really see mathematical reasons.
[webmasterworld.com...]
Is Matt and Amit Singhal saying, we'll white list you if you are on this side, and if you're on the other side your site will never rank unless it's something that has no coverage in the SERP's [ ie a niche / exceptional UI / stacks of freely given editorial links and citations ]

Is Google going to become a brand engine? Are we seeing the elimination, throttling and control of small / medium sites and business' that can't be responsive enough to participate?

Are we seeing consistency and responsibility in Google's approach?

I'd like to think so and would err on the side of optimism. But sometimes I think the bar has been set a little too aggressively in some verticals to incentivize healthy innovation for those who are not brands.

Questions ... questions ..... thoughts ?

[diberry]

But sometimes I think the bar has been set a little too aggressively in some verticals to incentivize healthy innovation for those who are not brands.

That's what I'm thinking - "trust" is being overvalued in the algo. I don't think Google's trying to account for the feedback loop in which signals of trust develop solely because someone SEO'd their way to the top for a while and people assumed they were there for a reason.

For those of us who don't have big marketing budgets, who depend on things like organic search, word of mouth and any other free method we can come up with to get our sites out there, this means we cannot achieve trust without spending money. No matter how good our content is, we'll either need to hire SEOs to help us get it to rank amongst all the other "trusted" sites, or we'll have to buy Adwords.

So Google may not be intentionally giving more weight to brands in the algo - I'm totally willing to take their word on that, as I can see no advantage for them* - but various factors in the algo ARE much more responsive to a nice marketing budget, which brands tend to have much more of than smaller sites (and heaven forbid, one-person websites).

*If Google just wanted to make more on Adwords, it seems to me they'd put the guys with the big marketing budgets lower in the listings to force them to buy Adwords to get to the top. In many cases, they could totally justify doing this, too.

[trinorthlighting]

Ok, this is not true. I typed in a keyword for a product that hundreds of sellers sell and here are the results:

1. Mom and Pop (Local Search)
2. Big Brand Home Depot
3. Big Brand Lowes
4. Big Brand Ace Hardware
5. Mom and Pop
6. Mom and Pop
7. Mom and Pop
8. Big Brand Walmart
9. Big Brand Amazon
10. Big Brand Target

Funny thing is, you go to the big brands websites (With the exception of amazon) for the product and they have a limited selection (Less than 10 variations each) yet the moms and pops have a few hundred variations of the product.

I still see the big brands taking up the first page and the big brands not offering a lot of selection. Sorry Google, but Bing is beating you there.

[netmeg]

But if you ask Joe User who does not own a website whether or not Google overvalues trust, or should not display big brands at or near the top of search results, most of them will likely not agree with you. And Google is more interested in Joe User than he is in Joe Webmaster. They care more about my 81 year old mother who types full URLs into the search box and prints out pages from eHow, than they do for me, with all my sites and my back knowledge and my AdSense and AdWords and whatnot.

[tedster]

Google is more interested in Joe User than he is in Joe Webmaster.

That is so on the money, netmeg. As a user, I care about trust a lot and appreciate knowing what big brands are selling the things I search for. It takes a lot for me to trust a website whose name I don't recognize. If they sell consumer goods, the quality of the product is not an issue. But things like speed of shipping, handling of mistakes, refunds etc certainly ARE issues. I've had good experiences in those areas with some mom and pop businesses, but as a proportion of all transactions I've had a consistently better experience with big brands.

As an SEO, I've worked with small and medium and big sites. They all have their Google challenges, believe me. I'm not a raving fanboi for Google, but I've got to acknowledge that they do an amazing job in this area. I think the fact that they CAN algorithmically create a mixed SERP like the one trinorthlighting reported above is amazing.

When it comes to non-transactional searches, I appreciate the big site emphasis even more. For example, when it comes to medical information I really don't want to lean heavily on off-brand information. It can be interesting for input's sake, but make it easy for me to find the pubmed's of the world, too.

[diberry]

Netmeg, but it's the SERPs that often determine who Joe User trusts, as in the case of eHow. If Google doesn't take steps to fix that feedback loop, then yes, they are handing an advantage to better funded sites. Even if the algo doesn't explicitly rank "brands" higher. That was my point.

Tedster, I understand that, but there are queries where people prefer small, independent websites. Like product reviews, opinions, Mommy blogging, non-mainstream social topics, etc. In these queries, I see a dismaying number of corporate sites lacking relevant content on the topics outranking the sites that actually know what they're talking about. In these cases, I think there is room for improvement.

Additionally, even in the medical vertical, a LOT of people are looking for "alternative" viewpoints because Western medicine has totally failed them and their only option is to search beyond what Mayo Clinic is reporting from studies. These queries tend to be topped by brands AND spam.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

Tedster, I understand that, but there are queries where people prefer small, independent websites. Like product reviews, opinions, Mommy blogging, non-mainstream social topics, etc. In these queries, I see a dismaying number of corporate sites lacking relevant content on the topics outranking the sites that actually know what they're talking about. In these cases, I think there is room for improvement.

Additionally, even in the medical vertical, a LOT of people are looking for "alternative" viewpoints because Western medicine has totally failed them and their only option is to search beyond what Mayo Clinic is reporting from studies. These queries tend to be topped by brands AND spam.

What's the source of the data for your conclusions?

[netmeg]

Netmeg, but it's the SERPs that often determine who Joe User trusts

Tedster, I understand that, but there are queries where people prefer small, independent websites. Like product reviews, opinions, Mommy blogging, non-mainstream social topics, etc. In these queries, I see a dismaying number of corporate sites lacking relevant content on the topics outranking the sites that actually know what they're talking about. In these cases, I think there is room for improvement.

Additionally, even in the medical vertical, a LOT of people are looking for "alternative" viewpoints because Western medicine has totally failed them and their only option is to search beyond what Mayo Clinic is reporting from studies. These queries tend to be topped by brands AND spam.

I disagree strongly with both these statements.

[Whitey]

I disagree strongly with both these statements.

I see both sides and a paradox in play.

Without visibility you can't facilitate brand [ in the SERP's]. Without the signals [ per Matt Cutts definition ], you are less likely to be visible.

And there's little loyalty in the SERP's. Google has significant control of online direction. It wouldn't have a business model otherwise.

Hence the disadvantages surrounding exclusion and the ensuing circus.

[micklearn]

Ok, this is not true. I typed in a keyword for a product that hundreds of sellers sell and here are the results:

1. Mom and Pop (Local Search)
2. Big Brand Home Depot
3. Big Brand Lowes
4. Big Brand Ace Hardware
5. Mom and Pop
6. Mom and Pop
7. Mom and Pop
8. Big Brand Walmart
9. Big Brand Amazon
10. Big Brand Target

I'd really like to see the same SERP from a year ago, two years, even three. If you have that data, please share it. It would be interesting to see where the 5.-7. Mom and Pops ranked over that time period.

Sorting out the cesspool that they chose to index/rank was going to be remedied by looking at brands. That was clearly stated in an interview a few years ago. Right?

Big brands don't have the upper hand? I'm seeing it every day just like diberry stated above. I'm guessing the source of the data is simply searching on various topics with a clean browser.

[Ersebet]

Tedster, I understand that, but there are queries where people prefer small, independent websites. Like product reviews, opinions, Mommy blogging, non-mainstream social topics, etc. In these queries, I see a dismaying number of corporate sites lacking relevant content on the topics outranking the sites that actually know what they're talking about. In these cases, I think there is room for improvement.

Additionally, even in the medical vertical, a LOT of people are looking for "alternative" viewpoints because Western medicine has totally failed them and their only option is to search beyond what Mayo Clinic is reporting from studies. These queries tend to be topped by brands AND spam.

What's the source of the data for your conclusions?

Forgive me TheOptimizationIdiot but no source needed for what is obvious. "a LOT of people are looking for "alternative" viewpoints" and "there are queries where people prefer small, independent websites" so what he said is true. You argue maybe about what is "a LOT" or how many queries but more helpful to forum reader than just "What's the source of the data for your conclusions? " This is not school but people helpin each other without terse reply.

Sorting out the cesspool that they chose to index/rank was going to be remedied by looking at brands. That was clearly stated in an interview a few years ago. Right?

It's clear to us but Google no admit because claim to be fair to all. Brands use Adwords

[Zivush]

The next question is: What makes a brand - What factors indicate a brand in the eyes of Google?
For example -
1. I've seen more than once that a brand name is included by Google in the Meta Title. Does it indicate that G recognizes the site as an authority.
2. Is it a mix of links, # of references and social branding?

[ColourOfSpring]

For example, when it comes to medical information I really don't want to lean heavily on off-brand information. It can be interesting for input's sake, but make it easy for me to find the pubmed's of the world, too.

tedster, medical searches are a good example of where Google are REALLY bad - they put way too much weight onto a very small cluster of sites - livestrong, mayoclinic, webmd etc - they pop up every time no matter what symptoms / medical query you put into Google. They offer generalised information at best that you often feel is written by someone who is NOT an expert on the subject, which is often not what you want when you want EVERY detail on a particular ailment. The real niche sites - often ones dedicated to the ailment, that feature communities discussing the ailment - are usually buried somewhere on page 2 or downwards. I've often had to make 10 or more searches in Google - starting off short tail and then increasingly longer tail - to find those kinds of sites. Why aren't those sites near the top for the ailment-related queries?