Marketing & SEO Discussion List - LED Digest

Local Search - Two Years Later

It's been some time since the "local search" topic has been discussed.  There was quite a pronouncement from old friend David Yancey on the LED, on March 18, 2004 [issue 1768], where he stated:

> You will notice that Google has essentially

> copied our search interface (vivante.com).

and

> This test by Google is actually great for Adjunction

> and its Vivante.com search concept, since it

> "validates" my business plan.

We'd certainly enjoy an update by David as to the success of Vivante and his opinion of local search 2 years later.

Jim Berry

bookkeepinghelp.com

Greetings Adam, and all my LED pals:

Thanks to Jim Berry for his interest in my views on the state of local search. I’ll answer Jim’s questions in two parts, if Adam will indulge. First, here’s where we (the search industry) are, exactly three years after the launch of our vivante.com, the first search site to truly integrate “global” search results with locally focused listings and sites.

 

For all their success in indexing billions of pages and selling paid ads, the big guys have still basically avoided the challenge of showing a locally-oriented searcher ALL relevant results in a single, cleanly organized, choice-rich SERP array. The “leaders” of search have opted instead to copy the old Yellow Page model of search, simply adding clever maps and driving instructions and the like to what are, in essence, telephone listings with (where they are available) website links.

 

I cannot really make the case for more integrated search platforms in a short LED post, so I will simply say that there is still a mental split in the minds of search designers and engine entrepreneurs. To these presumed experts, a user is either searching in the old traditional “let me see all relevant info and pages” mode, OR is “shopping”, OR is ordering a pizza, OR is looking for local event info. They ignore the fact that all this “finding behavior” is by the same person.

 

In turn, “search” still misses the hidden part of the iceberg, namely, impulse-clicking. If one defines search as EITHER a “global” experience, OR a sexed-up phone book experience, OR, as the shopping sites do, a price-comparison exercise, then one will never create the kind of finding experience that would be revolutionary from the consumer’s point of view.

 

We can bring all this down to a simple example:  give the consumer a tool where she can simply enter “Cuisinart”, and, ON ONE INTEGRATED SET OF PAGES, see recipes for food processors, techniques for using them, alternative brands to “Cuisinart”, books about this type of food preparation, local stores that sell the things, local cooking classes, and even a paid listing for the cooking vacation seminar she dreams of attending in the South of France.

 

Looked at from the typical advertiser’s point-of-view, there’s little value in showing a potential customer all this “useless” and diversionary “related information”. Advertisers simply are not confident that people will click through when they have so many choices. It is the old-style, pre-cable, broadcast channel mindset, still. And since, contrary to the quaint notion still held by many of serving web users honestly, the number one mission of Google and its near-peers is to serve advertisers, it’s not surprising that the effort to create a truly comprehensive, one-stop, resource-rich search experience has not emerged yet -- even though we have all the tools and platforms needed to make it happen.

 

In short, then, Jim, “local search” is NOT the real goal. The real goal is, on the one hand, to augment “local” search with “global” content and choices, and hence, trigger the impulses to look for related info and products, and, on the other hand, to augment ”global” search with “local” choices, making it easy for the person reading about Italy to order a pizza.

 

Looked at from this perspective, the search industry is way short of the goal. It means there are *lots* of opportunities yet.

 

Sure, Google and the two giants desperate to keep pace with G rule the roost in search, for sure, for now. But this success masks a much more dramatic reality:  a true revolution is underway as, thanks to the internet, smart telecommunications, and a host of PCs and computer-based devices, consumers (and business buyers) are quickly changing their “finding behavior”. This will mean a radical re-channeling of business advertising and marketing expenditures. We in search are mainly focused on the $25 billion or so mentioned above, but the actual amount of marketing money that is at stake is closer to *eight or ten times* that amount globally. There is a literal *flood* of new opportunities for interactive business-assistance and marketing services coming. Is it any surprise that mighty Google, now that they can print money, is rapidly trying to position itself in radio and television and “media buying exchange”?

 

In Part Two of this post, I’ll comment directly on the specifics of “local search”, where we as an industry are, and the major hill we all have yet to climb.

 

As to our vivante.com’s progress, thanks for asking, Jim! We are slowly growing, with typically a quarter million or so searches per month. We are unfunded, so cannot promote our particular solution in any dramatic way yet, much less add the several dozen enhancements at the top of our development wish-list. We do have a plan to make Vivante even more clearly a niche-focused site (oriented especially to educated women), including certain community features.

 

For our part, we’ll continue the outsider path, looking for ways to help “local” as well as “national” (web-based) and other smaller businesses target their search spend more effectively. In the meantime, we’ll also be having fun with our brand new humorous graphics business. ;) (See the special link for LEDers, below.)

My best to all for a very prosperous 2006!

David Yancey

---

Written by David Yancey
January 20, 2006

Part II

Jim Berry asked in LED 2077 for my views on “local search”. Jim didn’t specifically say so, but my reading of his and others comments suggest that the question is really: “Why is it taking so long to develop truly original and comprehensive tools for local search”? Here’s my view:

 

1. No major engine to my knowledge is looking at “local search” as anything more than an extension of shopping behavior. Clearly, and understandably, their interest is primarily in going after the roughly US$25 billion in local business search-related advertising expenses. I expect the big SEs to continue to make further inroads into the Yellow Page turf, since the IYPs (interactive Yellow Pages) are incredibly sluggish as well as vulnerable. But as entertaining as this bloodsport may be to us insiders, it’s not significantly enhancing search capability from a local user’s perspective.

 

2. Google and others are finally beginning to build a bridge between search-type listings and user (or newsletter subscriber) ZIP codes. This is long overdue, from my perspective as a web publisher, since it promises to be the Holy Grail for those publisher and membership websites who have been wise enough to capture user / member / subscriber ZIP info. Specifically, it will allow us to provide AdSense-like ads that are not only content-related, but also geo-specific in many cases. This is the way to bring about some of those missing “impulse clicks” I was going on about in Part One of this post. Ahhh, but how many “local” businesses, or national ones, either, have built solid, opt-in, content-rich, truly added-value newsletters...?

 

3. Similarly, a decade into the Web Era, and three years into “local search”, very few local businesses are using the many competing tools effectively. As a few of us predicted when GoTo first appeared, followed shortly after by Google and its arcane PageRank concept, the search marketing learning curve is very steep for most businesses, even the larger ones. The complexities of “auction bidding” are harder than ever to master, and SEO may as well be alchemy for all the business operators who have a clue how their web pages are viewed by “bots” and “spiders”.

 

Also as predicted, a huge new consulting industry has bloomed, but rather than shed light on all this black magic, the SEM/SEO folks have made it seem even *less* clear to the very folks now spending, according to my respected colleague Kevin Lee, nearly $6 billion annually for search marketing and related expertise.

 

And finally, as also predicted way back, the sales forces of the Yellow Pages companies, with their much-touted *local* presence, have so far failed to demonstrate any ability to educate local businesses on the art of generating online leads. There is a common view IMO that says “Wait until we have the right ‘wizards’ and tools’ to make all this complexity understandable and manageable by local businesses, and then local search will take off, because the local YP reps won’t need to be re-purposed for the interactive age.” I respectfully suggest not holding one’s breath in anticipation of said nirvana.

 

4. The shopping engines, which one would think would be jumping all over the opportunities in local search, have focused instead on the needs of national retailers, both chain stores and online sellers. The problem of educating local retailers to “feed” their product data is just not worth the ensuing piddly revenues, apparently. This masks the real problem, namely that the way paid search is structured, it is basically not economically viable for a small store or local chain. The related problem is that the shopper sites are totally focused on GOODS, not services, meaning they simply ignore a very large chunk of local consumption needs.

 

5. There are a few startups which are trying other ways to enhance search from a local perspective. Among the more interesting is beanpool in Atlanta, who are trying to put local search into the context of a “community”. Having originated the phrase “finding communities” about four years ago, I wish these guys success. But even if it proves a hit, and can then be replicated in other urban areas, it will still be another case of “finding fragmentation”, since global-type results will not be integrated.

 

6. Specialized and “niche” search is still in its infancy. I still believe strongly in the future of (market) “niche” search sites and also so-called “vertical” search engines. But with the stunning financial success of Google, most who might invest in such platforms and startups are demanding “the next Google”, which is totally unrealistic. Instead, most startups I am aware of (not including our www.vivante.com) are mainly interested in being bought out by Google ASAP. So, IMO, if a niche site is to have a chance, it will be by totally focusing on a market or special interest segment. It will need to be richer in its specialty than a big, all-things-to-all-people engine can hope to be.

 

7. The 800 pound gorilla in “local search” is going to be “event information”. The SEs and also the Yellow Pages crowd are just not geared for handling dynamic event posting yet. This is still regarded, it seems, as the newspapers’ turf, more or less. That is going to change fast, because this area can produce $ billions in paid-clicks. So it’s a safe bet that Google and others are drooling over this massive revenue stream.

8. Local classifieds are the *other* 800 pound gorilla in local search. These share essentially the same technical requirements as local events, so it’s a cinch that the lion’s share of this US$15 billion annual revenue stream will be dominated by the SEs and their partners, in time.

 

Putting all these observations together, I’d estimate that “local search” is, IMO, maybe 25% along its ultimate evolutionary path in technology terms, and less than 10% (of its potential) in annual revenue terms.

 

Lots of opportunities on the horizon, LEDers! And we don’t need to be “the next Google” to take full advantage of them.

David Yancey

tootoographic.com