Month: June 2017

Jarred Mailer-Lyons, Digital Media Strategist at The MediaShop

Every year, Google changes its search algorithm around 600 times. While most of these changes are insignificant to advertisers and brands, occasionally there are major algorithmic updates that rock the industry. These changes can be potential game changers for brands and also significantly impact a site’s rankings. You can call the latest one Fred. For now.

For brands and agencies that rely on Google Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) as a key business driver, knowing the release dates of these Google algorithm updates can help unpack changes in rankings and organic website traffic to ultimately improve SEO results. Some of the major algorithmic changes that have had the biggest impact on search over the past several years include five main updates. These have been:

 Panda

The Panda update was a major algorithm update that hit sites hard, affecting up to 12% of search results. Panda was mainly focused on low-quality content sites with high advertising to content ratios, and a number of other quality issues. This was a little different from other algorithm updates in that Panda was more about on-site issues.

Duplicate content was one of Panda’s major issues as it affected multiple URL’s with the same content. While it wasn’t technically penalised, duplicate content can still sometimes impact search engine rankings. When there are multiple pieces of content in more than one location on the web, it can be difficult for search engines to decide which version is more relevant to a given search query.

Perceived ‘thin’ content also fast became an issue, which was affected by this update. Thin content was a naming convention that referred to low quality pages that add little to no value to the user. Examples of thin content include duplicate pages, automatically generated content or doorway pages. This update however affected a lot of snippet pieces of content, which included news sites, blog posts etc.

Panda also looked at the Click Through Rates (CTR) and Bounce Rates – the user experience on site was a major focus of the Panda updates and the best way to measure it was through user engagement and time spent on site. Ultimately Panda required sites to up their game in terms of usability, user experience, creating meaningful and engaging content and of course refraining from creating duplicating thin content.

 Penguin

The focus of the Penguin update was on external linking. If a brand had a poor link profile that did not relate back to the content of the site that a person was linking to then this would affect the algorithm negatively. This created a domino effect on the page rankings and quality score. Penguin was a major algorithm update that targeted sites spamming its search engine results, in particular it targeted sites that were buying links or obtaining them through link networks designed primarily to boost Google rankings.

Another issue that this update focused on was anchor text. This is the clickable text in a hyperlink. SEO best practices dictate that anchor text must be relevant to the page you’re linking a user through to, rather than providing generic or unrelated text. The update also focused on the issue of keyword stuffing, in which a web page is loaded with keywords in the meta tag coding or in the content of a web page in an attempt to gain an unfair rank advantage in search engines.

 Hummingbird

Hummingbird took into account more than 200 minor and major changes and was an attempt by Google to provide better responses to voice queries, specifically within the mobile space. However what Google actually wanted to gain out of this algorithm update was to give the end user the right answers to their questions, the correct facts and statistics, and articles that were dense with high quality related content. This type of information started to allow brands to surface organically as they provided value to the end user by giving them more in-depth information around their search query.

 Pigeon

The Pigeon update focused on local SEO, which drastically changed the way Google interprets, modifies and handles location results. For example: the query ‘Johannesburg restaurants’ started ranking SEO results substantially higher than something more generic like ‘Greek Restaurants’. The query results on Google Search vs Google Maps were significantly different before this update took effect. This algorithm connected web and map search in a more cohesive way. In 2014, Yelp confronted Google for apparently disregarding its major local review site in Google’s search results. The Pigeon update then corrected this problem, and put Yelp specific queries, among other review sites, ahead of its own which placed greater general emphasis and weighting on directories and directory listings.

 Fred (New unconfirmed SEO ranking)

It’s been about a month since there was some talk around the new update called Fred. The latest chatter seems to be linked to ‘quality’ and not necessarily ‘content quality’ related but again this is just the chatter.

While Google remains vague about what this update specifically focused on, it has been around long enough to guage their direction. As some of the modifications have started affecting traffic and rankings, certain of the research has started to show that if a site’s rankings are heavily dependent on multiple long-tail keywords and the content that matches those keywords was written before 2014, then those sites would have been affected.

Basically, if Fred identified any site content as invaluable, low quality, outdated, or too ad-heavy then rankings were guaranteed to start seeing massive drops. Also, backlinks to the main site with old content has started seeing a clamp down by the update. Since low backlinks and low quality content often go hand in hand, this correlation makes it difficult to determine which, if not both, factors in driving the changes in rankings.

So what do we take out of all of this – basically, change is the only constant in SEO. Even though it is a relatively new industry and Google updates their algorithm on a daily basis – the parameters are constantly affected and sites are forced to adapt. So if the only constant is change then let’s embrace it, learn from it and be better at what we do.

Speaking of Digital Monopolies

Chris Botha: Group MD of The MediaShop

 

The South African lexicon and news has been filled with a bunch of new phrases over the past few years. These include “monopolies”, “foreign capital” and “local first” which are all “symptoms” of a consumer market kicking back against what appears to be the product of a global economy.

A global economy can be defined as large global corporates moving into any given market, undercutting local suppliers and sucking the market dry, and not adding any value back. It’s very hard for local markets to compete against, and very difficult to stop.

South Africa is obviously not immune to this. We have seen big global banks, FMCG companies and mines come into our market and they are nearly impossible to compete with. Smaller local businesses get run down, and wiped out. They’re simply unable to compete against a global monster that can amortise cost, and improve product output over multiple markets.

I recently saw some numbers that spoke of digital media accounting for 50% of overall adspend in the UK. The 50% share that digital takes is broken up mostly into two groups, namely, Search (Google specifically), and Social (Facebook primarily).

By some indications, Search accounts for nearly 50% of digital adspend (therefore 25% of All UK adspend), and Social in the region of 20%. So in other words, these two media owners combined, account for nearly 70% of the 50% spent on digital in the UK – or – 35% OF ALL ADSPEND IN THE UK!!

Will this number grow? You betcha.

Is it enormous right now? Yes, the UK adspend market (depending on who you believe) is currently worth £20 billion. That means Facebook and Google take nearly £7 billion in ad revenue every year.

Now this raises a few tough questions in my mind. Most of which I don’t have the answer to right now (sorry). But I think if we don’t tackle them now, I fear we might end up in a very awkward position in the years to come.

Let’s assume that Digital grows to 25% share of total adspend in SA in the next five years, and that Search and Social take up 70% of that. That would mean Google and Facebook would take roughly 18% of the total adspend market in SA. Let’s also assume our market is worth R44 billion. That would mean that nearly R8 billion in advertising revenue would go to Facebook and Google alone.

That revenue is taken away from local business. What does that do to the local media scene in South Africa? That R8 billion would have paid salaries for actors, DJ’s, presenters, directors, producers and journalists. In the meantime that money is given to Monsieur’s Zuckerberg, Brin and Page to make their global monsters bigger, and even more compelling.

As Facebook and Google are “global media owners” – the only clients they will really engage with, are global clients (and their global media agencies). What does that mean for a local client or local media agency? How do our local guys deal with them competitively? Could this trend literally render local media agencies redundant? Possibly, yes.

Then there are the tax implications. Money will once again probably be filtered through Ireland, en route to Palo Alto in California and the South African Government, and more importantly, its people don’t see the massive benefit at all.

If we look at the latest product offerings coming out of Facebook and Google, it’s clear that they have their eyes firmly set on competing in every single sphere. Facebook Canvas is in essence a print leaflet. Video obviously competes with TV and Radio and their location based services challenge OOH.

I think the threat is clear. As these two monopolies (because that’s what they are) grow stronger and stronger – we will become more and more dependent on them, and in the long run, be entirely beholden to their will.

But Chris – that is the dynamic of a free market economy, I hear you say. Yes, I know, but there is something about it that doesn’t sit right, and it worries me.

So what am I saying? Should we collectively stop advertising with Google and Facebook? Absolutely not. They have a critical role to play in the consumer engagement cycle. I do however think we need to walk with eyes wide open into a media future where the production budgets for TV shows, the monies needed to keep the printers turning, and the cash required to fund our local media scene is NOT slowly being sent abroad.

I for one don’t have the answer to this one. Any suggestions?