For example, take a look at this listing for a burger joint in downtown Traverse City,  MI. As you can see, the updates to the listing are fairly minor; however there are some specific changes that caught my eye…

Let’s take a look at the highlights:

• The natural search results for the business show up above the local map listing
• A second balloon marker now shows up next to the listing’s information
• Reviews are displayed for some listings, but according to some, there appears to be some new stipulations about what shows up
• The old “More Information” link has been changed to “Place Page” and moved underneath the business name
• The business’s website URL is no longer displayed under its name
• The business name no longer links directly to its website

The last couple items above are what really stick out to me—no website URL displayed and the business name no longer links directly to that business’s site. In terms of the local result, the only option searchers have left if they’re looking for more information is to click the map to go into Google maps or navigate to the Place Page, which does link to the actual site.

Is it just me, or does it seem like Google is adding an extra (unnecessary?) step to get people where they want to go? It looks as if Google is taking a page out of Bing’s book and trying to keep searchers on their site instead of simply pointing them in the right direction through search results.

The real question here is how will these changes, particularly the website link change I singled out above, affect site traffic? What sort of impact will that small, yet extra step have on fickle searchers who just want to get to a site, not spend more time on Google?

Granted, these kind of single results probably show up for more branded searches than non-branded, and thus are usually only seen by searchers who already know what they’re looking for. But what if Google decides to roll these changes out to their other local listings? How might the absence of a direct link to a business’s website in 3 or 7-pack local results impact the traffic they usually get from those listings?

We’ll have to wait and see. Until then, please share your thoughts.

There are a ton of great productivity tools and programs on the web, but for keeping up with your laundry list of blogs it’s hard to beat Google Reader.

To start utilizing Google Reader, you will need to set up a Gmail web account. This can be a throw away email address if you use a different email. However, it can also be another time saver if you use it as your primary email, because your log in will be the same as the reader. Once in Google Reader, you can begin gathering all your RSS feeds from the blogs you visit. If you are unfamiliar with an RSS feed, short for Really Simple Syndication, it is the little orange icon with three white lines.

Click on the RSS Feed button and it will give you a URL that will continually update new posts from that blog.

Then copy that address and go back to your Google Reader page. On the top left side of the page, click on the “Add a Subscription” button and then paste the URL of the blog.

Then the no frills, all content blog post will be live in front of you. I prefer to categorize my blogs to help further organize my blog reading. By no means are my categories (shown below) for everyone, but they can serve as a guide to get you started.

To place a blog into a folder, click on feed settings and click on the folder you would like it to live in.

Google Reader is easy, fast and makes blog organization simple!

Unfortunately we can’t buy time, but we can save it! I hope that these tips were not only informative, but were also worth your time—something Google Reader and myself understand the importance of.

So, Google Tags give you the opportunity to make your site stand out from your competitors. They also allow you to promote a marketing message that could help increase your click-through rate. This all gives you the opportunity to give customers a value add that could result in more business being generated through the online channel.

On the surface, Google Tags sound like a pretty great opportunity for a business to increase its online presence. And for any business that is currently running online campaigns, it also sounds pretty expensive.

However, the cost for this enhanced listing is only $25 a month. No CPC or CPM, just a flat rate of $25. Now, that probably peaked your interest. For only $25 you can differentiate your site from your competitors. That sounds great. Unfortunately, your competitors are thinking the exact same thing. So, when Google rolls out Tags to your area, don’t expect to be the only business that takes advantage of this opportunity.

What do you think of Google Tags? Are you currently using this feature? Are you planning on using it when it becomes available in your area?

Now, admit that you’ve done it before—abandoned a perfectly good shopping cart while shopping online. We’ve all contributed to this blight on the internet landscape.

“No harm done,” you say…”it’s just a shopping cart.” Well, some developer somewhere spent 20 hours a day for weeks in his basement writing code to create that shopping cart. Have some compassion!

Fear not good readers, for it’s Google to the rescue! A champion of so many worthy social causes, Google has developed a process they call Remarketing, which helps rescue abandoned shopping carts.

It’s not a new idea, but Google hopes to make a big splash with this new functionality in its clients’ AdWords accounts. E-commerce sites and shopping carts around the world are loving it! Imagine having the ability to identify what a shopper viewed on your website, placed in their cart, but did not purchase. With Google Remarketing, the item they desired on your website, but didn’t purchase, will be advertised on websites that they visit after abandoning your site. How cool is that?

Think “Minority Report”, where ad bots scan your pupils to identify you and serve ads based on your personal profile. Some of you may think it’s a bit creepy, but, my take on it is—thank goodness! There’s nothing more annoying than random ads that have no relevance to me or my interests. Maybe you’ve seen those debt refinancing ads featuring extremely hairy individuals. Yuck!

So, the next time you plan to make a purchase online, save a shopping cart from a cruel fate. Be bold and actually make the purchase! But rest easy. If a thrilling Stanley Cup Finals game distracts you from completing the purchase, know that Google is on the case.

Let’s share Google’s mission to save one shopping cart at a time!

Requirements:

Google requires ads to meet various requirements before they’ll serve your ad with the site links. First, Google only provides this option to advertisers whose accounts meet a ‘high’ quality standard. Google doesn’t provide anyway to quantify that quality level. Either you’re in or not. Second, Google requires the ad to be in position #1. The ad doesn’t have to average position #1, but when the ad serves in positions below #1 the site links will not be included. Lastly since this feature is in beta status, Google isn’t obligated to serve site links with your ads even if you meet the quality, position and editorial requirements.

Words of Encouragement:

Benefits For The Advertiser: There are several reasons why testing this new ad format may benefit you the advertiser. The most obvious is that your ad will be the only one of its kind on the page, effectively making it stick out. If competition is high for a particular keyword and increasing CTR is a challenge, site links may be the one way to do so. Site links should be used to highlight a particular competitive advantage. This could be a free shipping promotion or a brand new line of products. Either way, make sure the link text is compelling and unique to the SERP. This will give you the best chance to be rewarded with extra visitors and sales.

Benefits For Google: There has got to be something in it for Google to test this new ad format. Their goal always will be providing the searcher with the best experience possible. Equal to the experience is Google’s ability to earn revenue from advertising. The site links ad format is designed to do both. If more searchers click on the #1 PPC listing than before, then Google earns more revenue per click and most likely provided the searcher with a good experience. It makes sense that Google would prefer the user to click on the ad in positions #1 over the ad in position #2, and it also makes sense that Google would want a searcher to click on a PPC ad rather than an organic listing.  Giving PPC ads top page position while making them as attractive as the organic listings is likely to divert more clicks away from top ranking organic results. Increasing CTR on PPC ads compared to organic listings is definitely in Google best interest. If you do not rank well organically but your competition does, this may be your opportunity to take some of their business away.

Competition for the top position is bound to increase CPC due to the exclusivity of the site link ad format. Because the #1 spot is required, bidding competition is also likely to become much fiercer for advertisers who desire this type of serving.

Words of Caution:

If you decide to start testing site link ads make sure you pay close attention to trending on your average cost per click. Also, measure your results objectively. Set benchmarks before the site link testing begins. By doing so you’ll have a way to compare before and after performance and be confident that the new initiative is worth the effort. There is rarely a good reason to bid to position #1 if the return on investment doesn’t directly support that bidding strategy.

If your website already ranks well organically and displays site links make sure you do not overlap. Think about your overall search strategy. Take advantage of the unique opportunity that PPC ads offer and promote a part of your business that you couldn’t as a part of your organic site links.

I’m interested to see how strategies evolve and whether Google sticks with this format in the long term. To all who are able to use the new site link ads, I wish you the best of luck.

It’s the last day of April, and that means this is the conclusion of our monthlong magnification of the world’s most popular search engine company.

As a recap, I’m going to run through the top 7 reasons we all need to stay aware of Google’s growth in the search market and, more importantly, elsewhere.

1. Yahoo is Testing Google Search Ads

Earlier this month, Yahoo performed a two week test that integrated Google’s PPC ads into Yahoo’s paid search results. While the test was considered by many to be an effort by Yahoo to discourage Microsoft’s buyout bid, the U.S. Justice Department decided to investigate possible antitrust implications. If Google was given 100% of the paid search real estate on Yahoo, a serious PPC monopoly would arise.

2. The Google Voice: Free Speech in Search

With Google’s search market share hovering near 70% in the U.S. (1), a sudden drop in search positions on Google can devastate a company that relies on Google traffic. All in all, this post is a friendly neighborhood reminder to diversify your company’s sources for incoming clientele.

3. Google’s Win in the FCC 700-megahertz Auction

As a result of its influence on the Federal Communications Commission Auction of 700-megahertz radio frequencies earlier this year, Google helped get new policies put into place – policies that allow for “open networks” where consumers can use a wider variety of devices and applications. As our blog post points out, a 2006 Google patent application describes a method for collecting mobile user data, which would be possible via the new consumer-friendly, mobile network environment.

4. Google Knows More about You than Your Spouse Does

After seeing how Google learns more about “Bob” in one evening than his spouse knows, we invite you to ask the question, “What does Google know about me?”

5. Google’s Users are the Real Commodities

Over the course of this 3-part series-within-a-series, we discover what kind of personal information Google can collect about its users, through name-brand products such as Google Checkout, Google Talk and Gmail, in addition to Google-owned sites like YouTube, Picasa and Orkut. It’s a bit of an eye-opener knowing that one of the largest potentials for future revenue is the sale of Google’s user data.

6. Google’s Stake in 23andMe and Google’s Plans for Your Medical Records

Both of these blog posts examine how our personal health records could soon become part of Google’s enormous collection of data.

7. Google Goes To Washington

To advocate on issues that concern Google, the company has hired some of the top lobbyists in the country to pound the pavement on Capitol Hill. We all know that Washington needs an education in online commerce, but should it come from one of the web’s largest advertisers?

In Conclusion

As I stated at the beginning of this series, I both respect and fear Google. I use Google’s services countless times every day in both my professional and personal life.

Our goal with this monthlong magnification was to make sure people are aware of Google’s grasp on personal data and grip within the search industry.

Now, get back to work.

Image: b_d_solis

1. Hitwise US – Leading Search Engines, March, 2008.

When a small town in western North Carolina, suffering from the loss of their primary local industry and growing unemployment rates, heard that a major tech company was looking for real estate in the area, the Mayor himself went above and beyond to bring jobs and money back into his town.

In 2005, Google, looking to build a $600 million dollar data center complex, showed up in North Carolina—in the form of a consultant working for an anonymous tech company—and the town of Lenoir, seeing an opportunity to recover from its economic struggle, quickly got in the negotiation game.

Image of Google Data Center in Lenoir under construction: Charlotte Observer

At the beginning of the negotiations, a 127-acre plot of land was on the table and Google didn’t raise any objections. But, not long into the process, Google demanded more land. Lenoir’s Mayor, David Barlow did much of the leg-work himself to give Google the deal they wanted so that Lenoir, population 17,000, could be the site of one of Google’s data centers. Mayor Barlow knocked on the doors of Lenoir residents, located long-lost heirs, and the city even paid for a divorce just to stitch together a 216-acre plot of land to satisfy Google. (1)

Google’s demands on the water supply in Lenoir were far beyond what the small town could handle, so Mayor Barlow offered Google the best deal the town could afford: the city would pay $24 million for upgrades to the municipal water system if Google would agree to stay in town long enough to justify the huge expense. Google finally agreed to pay $1.05 million toward the water system expansion but refused to lock itself into a minimum period of residency. (1)

In addition to local tax incentives, Google pushed for a bill in the North Carolina state legislature that would make server farms exempt from sales tax on the electricity they use. Following a threat from Google’s negotiator that without the exemption, “the project simply will not come to North Carolina,” the bill passed in July 2007. (1)

In Lenoir, Mayor Barlow was quick to respond to Google’s demands, doing his best to give them the incentives and provisions they were looking for. The mayor spent unpaid evenings and weekends putting together a deal Google could live with. All in all, a small town made big adjustments to accommodate a large company, hoping for tax money to boost the town’s suffering economy. The end result of all of these negotiations also included tax rebates expected to be $5.87 million off Google’s $6 million tax liability. Google’s negotiator points out that this gives Lenoir $130,000 they wouldn’t have otherwise. (1)

Certainly a multi-billion dollar corporation is not expected to save the small town of Lenoir just so it can build its data center there, but the events leading up to Google’s deal with Lenoir suggest that Google was not opposed to capitalizing on the struggles and weakness of a small town. (1)

Food For Thought
In late 2005, Google showed up in Lenoir. Today, Google is starting to integrate into the town as they construct and test their new data center facilities. The Lenoir project received state and local incentives totaling up to $165 million over 30 years, and Google is now “mixing with local civic groups and donating charity Christmas trees for a public display” to say ‘thanks.’ (2)

How far should state and local governments go to entice companies like Google to share their hometowns? Did Google get too aggressive in their negotiations in Lenoir and take advantage of a small town with economic hardships? Does Google have any responsibilities to help improve the communities where the company builds data centers and other Google locations?

According to Google’s Carolinas Operations Manager, Tom Jacobik, “We’re not here to save the town. We’re here to run a business.” (2)

1. The High Cost of Wooing Google, BusinessWeek, July 23, 2007.

2. Jen Aronoff, Google, Lenoir try to adapt to one another, Associated Press, February 3, 2008.

“There is no human involvement or manipulation of results, which is why users have come to trust Google as a source of objective information untainted by paid placement.” (1) This is what Google’s Technology Overview page used to say. Now, this phrase is noticeably missing. (2) Human involvement or not, Google’s search results have been recognized as having what seems like a very human right – freedom of speech.

From the beginning, Google founders recognized that their search engine was a business and not merely a resource. Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin wrote a paper about the creation of Google as Ph.D. candidates at Stanford. In that paper they stated, “we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.” (3) Today, 99% of Google’s revenue comes from ads. (4) Brin and Page’s early acknowledgement that search results would likely be biased toward advertisers, combined with Google’s search results being considered protected free speech, could change the way users view Google’s search results. But how did Google’s search results become recognized as protected free speech? It started with one company: Search King. (5)

Search King

Google’s Page Rank is a system developed to determine a page’s “value” and assign the web page a rank. That rank is essentially what determines where a page will appear in Google’s search results page for a relevant query. (6) Search King (7) was a company selling online advertising space on sites that were highly ranked on Google’s Page Rank system and would pay the websites based in part on their Google Page Rank. (8) Search King’s page rank suddenly dropped, along with the Page Rank of some of its affiliates. This downgrade meant that Search King’s position in natural results dropped dramatically. Search King sued Google arguing that the Page Rank had been intentionally and maliciously downgraded. (9)

Google admitted to intentionally downgrading Search King’s site and some of its affiliate sites, but stated that Google has “no obligation to rank Search King’s site at its desired level, or to include Search King’s web site on its search engine.” Google argued that its Page Rank is protected free speech and protected by the first amendment. (10) The court found in favor of Google, saying that “it could be argued that Google acted maliciously and wrongfully”, but Google’s actions were privileged free speech. Also, the court stated that no website can demand to be accessible via Google. (11) The end result here – Google’s search results can rank and position sites however they choose. No need to rely on relevancy or algorithms if they choose not to.

A couple of years after the Search King case, a similar case came along with similar results. Kinderstart (12) had their Page Rank drastically reduced in March 2005 and immediately lost 70% of their traffic. (13) As a result, KinderStart and other plaintiffs tried, unsuccessfully, to form a class action lawsuit to recover damages from Google for the downgrades in Page Rank. (14) The case was eventually dismissed and Google’s freedom of speech remained intact.

Food For Thought

With a search market share at almost 67%, (15) a sudden and dramatic drop in search position on Google could be devastating to a company. And, if a company has no control in improving or rebuilding their search position, there may be no way to recover.

(1) Google Corporate Information, Technology Overview, last visited January 15, 2008.
(2) Google Corporate Information, Technology Overview, last visited April 24, 2008.
(3) Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine, Appendix B, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, 1998.
(4) Google 10-K, Annual Report (filed 2/15/2008).
(5) Search King v. Google, Inc., CV-02-1457 2003 WL 21464568 (W.D. Okla. May 27, 2003).
(6) Google Corporate Information, Technology Overview, last visited April 24, 2008.
(7) Search King.
(8) Search King; Complaint, Search King v. Google (filed 10/17/2002).
(9) Search King.
(10) Search King at 2.
(11) Search King at 11-12.
(12) KinderStart.com LLC v. Google, Inc., C 06-2057 JF (N.D. Cal. March 16, 2007).
(13) KinderStart.com LLC at 4.
(14) KinderStart.com LLC.
(15) Hitwise, March 2008, based on volume of searches.

We’ve been talking about Google, their business, their practices and products, and their future, but what we haven’t talked about is who is making the big decisions.

Google is a multi-billion dollar corporation with thousands of employees, executives, directors and corporate officers – this can’t be a three man show. As a publicly traded company, stockholders would expect to have some influence in major business decisions.

Taking a look at Google’s stock structure and considering all of the questions that our Google series has raised, it seems that, whatever the future intentions and direction of Google, there may not be an effective way to change the direction of their business.

When you buy stock in a company, whether it is one share or thousands, you want to make sure your investment is protected and managed appropriately. Typically, companies issue voting rights to stockholders so that each stockholder has a say in how the company acts, who runs the company, and/or how the company handles major decisions. And, companies will often share profits with shareholders by issuing dividends for each share of stock.

Google has two classes of stock; Class A common stock and Class B common stock. Google’s Class A stock is what is traded on the NASDAQ under the “GOOG” symbol. If you own Google stock, you own Class A stock. Google’s Class B stock is held primarily by Google’s executive officers, directors, management and employees and the rights given to Class B stockholders are very different from that of Class A common stock.*

Class A:*
* 1 vote per share
* Publicly traded
* 2,776+ stockholders of record
* No dividends

Class B:*
* 10 votes per share
* Not publicly listed or traded
* 111 shareholders of record
* All held by founders, directors and executives

How does the Class A and B common structure and rights affect Google Class A stockholders? The Company?

The founders, executive officers and directors of Google together owned shares of Google’s Class A and B stock that represents around 70% of the stockholder voting power. And, of that 70%, Eric Schmidt, Larry Page and Sergey Brin own both Class A and B common stock representing about 67% of the voting power as of December 31, 2007 – leaving about 3% of the voting power for the rest of the directors and executive officers to share.

This means that whether stockholders are voting on major corporate transactions, mergers, the sale of assets or the election of directors of the company, it would be almost impossible for other stockholders to influence a vote where Schmidt, Page and Brin were voting together. *

Food For Thought

Google is aware that Class A stockholders won’t necessarily be happy if Google uses the voting power they have with the Class B shares to take actions that the Class A stockholders do not agree with. In their 2007 Annual Report, Google describes how the stocks work and concludes that if they took this type of action, “the price of Class A common stock could be adversely affected.”* Google has gone further to keep stockholders from influencing certain business decisions. The board of directors fills vacancies on the board in many circumstances – stockholders cannot vote to elect those members.*

* December 31, 2007 Google Annual Report (Filed 02/15/08).

Well, the Google satellite photo from Google Maps has certainly painted an interesting picture of the Google lobbying efforts. Google, who spent nearly $1.4 million dollars on their lobbying efforts during the second half of 2007 (1), appears to be operating from a white utility van in a Washington, D.C. parking lot – though the picture is a bit hazy. But don’t let Google Maps fool you. Google’s Washington, D.C. office is the home base for a sophisticated political machine.

With a slight adjustment to the coordinates, this satellite view of Google’s Washington office should be focused on a 27,000 square foot, eco-friendly Googleplex with all of the comforts of Silicon Valley Google professionals have come to expect: free gourmet lunches, foosball, ping pong, Xbox, plasma screen TVs, massage chairs and the rest of the typical Google office gear (2).

But, these people aren’t your typical Googlers. The D.C. Googlers have worked with some powerful people: Pablo Chavez served as general counsel for Sen. John McCain prior to joining Google and Johanna Shelton was a top aide to Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee before she joined Google’s Washington team (3).

And, Google didn’t stop with their own impressive list of lobbyists – they have also hired some of the top lobbyists in the country to pound the pavement on Capitol Hill, advocating on the issues that concern Google. In addition to the $620,000.00 Google spent on their own Washington team in the first quarter of 2008 (4), they spent another $210,000 on reputable Washington lobbyists in Q1 (5).

Googlers in Washington D.C. scored a major political victory in 2007 when they helped persuade federal regulators to approve the DoubleClick acquisition despite serious consumer privacy and anti-trust concerns(6). And, because Googlers don’t miss an opportunity to recruit new Google users, the D.C. staff gave “Google 101″ crash courses in Google web tools to staffers on Capitol Hill. Now there are U.S. Senators giving presentations on overseas trips using Google Earth and Google Maps (7). But what does Google have on their lists for 2008?

Food For Thought

In our post, Examining Google’s Plans for Your Medical Records, we examined the patent for an ad serving system that ran in an electronic medical records system and looked at the potential for Google to collect and store user’s personal medical records and history. The patent is still pending, but it looks like Google could be gearing up in D.C. for the future use of this system.

In addition to the Google Lobbyists, a lobbing report for Q1 of 2008 filed by a reputable D.C. law firm reveals that, among other lobbying activities, the firm has 5 individuals lobbying health issues described as “online health-related issues” for Google. Google managed to get approval on the DoubleClick acquisition; could Google’s team of lobbyists also manage to open up our medical records to Google? With the possibility of a Yahoo-Google ad serving partnership looming, is an anti-trust battle next on Google’s Washington agenda?

(1) Information available from Lobbying Disclosure Database.
(2) Jim Puzzanghera, Google Feeling Lucky in D.C., Los Angeles Times, January 17, 2008.
(3) Lobbying Report, Google Inc., Q1, (received 4/21/2008), available from the Lobbying Disclosure Database.
(4) Lobbying Report, Google Inc., Q1, (received 4/21/2008), available from the Lobbying Disclosure Database.
(5) Podesta Group, Inc., Lobbying Report, Client: Google, Q1 (received 4/21/2008) and King & Spalding, LLP, Lobbying Report, Client: Google, Q! (received 4/20/2008), available from the Lobbying Disclosure Database.
(6) Jim Puzzanghera, Google Feeling Lucky in D.C., Los Angeles Times, January 17, 2008.
(7) Frank Davies, Working Washington in a Google-y way, San Jose Mercury News, June 24, 2007.