On April 24, 2008 a sizable army of Apogeeans – the Apogee Army of Altruism –set off for the southern most tip of Austin to volunteer at the Capital Area Food Bank of Texas (CAFB).

The eighteen or so of us arrived at CAFB and made our way to the holding area to sign in and place name tags on our chests. With that difficult part of the volunteering experience out of the way our guide and host Xavier gave an overview of CAFB’s operations. Brief overview: the Food Bank is, in essence, a distribution center. Food is not handed out on-site, but rather local charities and non-profit groups place food orders, drive to CAFB in trucks, cars and trailers, pick up their orders and then provide the direct service of feeding Central Texans from their charity or non-profit organization.

It’s time to head to the Product Recovery Room. We walk through two sets of doors and into a 60,000 square foot warehouse. The ceilings live way up in the sky. It holds approximately 1.5 million pounds of food – the CAFB ships around 2.5 million pounds per month. Finally, we reach two massive swinging doors that lead to the chilly Product Recovery. We’re ushered to the back corner of the recovery room. Look up. There’s a large instruction guide hanging from the wall. It contains all of the dos and don’ts – clean all cans and pass them down the conveyor belt, check adult and baby formula for specific date guidelines, et cetera – feel free to sing along with the radio blaring in the other corner.

After a bit of a rocky start, everyone got the hang of it and we soon started cleaning, categorizing, caching the food into boxes and stacking for delivery at The Flash speed. By the time Xavier told us students to put our pencil down, we had managed to process 10,276 pounds of food that equals 8,220 meals. Hopefully, we’ll surpass that benchmark on our next trip to the Capital Area Food Bank of Texas!

First Microsoft gives Yahoo a deadline of this weekend to begin negotiations or face a hostile tackover, then reveals that maybe they don’t want Yahoo anyways.

This is beginning to look like one of my high school dating relationships.

Suffice it to say that Yahoo beating its projected numbers this week throws a new wrinkle in things. All the sudden, “nothing happens” is looking like a viable outcome.

Like a soap opera, things are heating up between Microsoft and Yahoo, complete with threats, machinations, and denials. As things stand right now, I see five possible outcomes.

1) Nothing happens.
Very unlikely. Yahoo’s numbers aren’t there right now, and an attempt to stay the course would create considerable unrest amongst Yahoo shareholders.

2) Microsoft purchases Yahoo in a friendly takeover.
Possible, but unlikely. I just don’t see the two finding a number that is large enough for Yahoo’s board, yet small enough for Microsoft.

3) Microsoft purchases Yahoo in a hostile takeover.
Possible, but a poor outcome for both. Microsoft and Yahoo would have a hard enough time merging cultures in a friendly acquisition. The resentment of a hostile takeover would make successful integration impossible. The net-net would be marketshare lost to Google by the combined entity.

4) Yahoo outsources its advertising to Google.
Attractive, but unlikely. Yahoo is testing these waters right now. One can argue that this would be the best outcome for Yahoo shareholders, but I doubt either the US or EU trade commissions would get on-board.

5) TimeWarner rolls AOL into Yahoo.
Most likely. Either this deal, or a similar deal that greatly increases Yahoo’s advertising inventory, is probably going to happen. This would assuage the shareholders’ fears, at least for a while. Whether or not Yahoo can show long term growth, however, is a legitimate concern.

Much has been made about yesterday’s forecast of the SEM Industry. Long story short: things are pretty good, or in the words of Larry David: “Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty good.” According to Radar Research and SEMPO the SEM industry was projected to grow to an $11.6 billion industry in 2007, however that number grew to $12.2 billion by the end of Q4. These numbers had a domino effect on the 2011 forecast that was projected to be at $18.6 billion a year ago. Now North American SEM spending is projected to grow to $25.2 billion by 2011.

However the survey also shows that much of this increase is a backlash from marketers finding more search dollars by poaching budgets from print, website development, direct mail, and other traditional ad platforms. While this is an easy correlation to make given the current state of the US economy, it seems as though the enormity of advances in technology and services are given the short end of the stick due to the always-looming recession. Below are some more reasons why SEM will continue to grow, recession or no recession.

Social Media- Even though playing the social media card in the first hand is now a cliché, there’s no denying that next to Google, everyone has to be on MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, Digg, and/or the next big thing. Businesses that have no clue how to operate social media pages are taking advantage of anything they can get their hands on. Even the AARP has tapped into Facebook and YouTube to help plant the seed of future membership http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6483871557

Goolge Innovation- New link reporting tools, personalized search, universal search, Google Health, Google News in Hindi etc., etc. Google’s innovation drives the search engine market and also forces other engines to play catch-up or innovate themselves. As much flack as I’ve given to MSN’s Live Search games there’s no doubt that they’ve helped the fledgling search engine’s numbers in the past year.

Proliferation of Industry Blogs- I can’t think of any other industry where knowledge is so firmly steeped in learning from your contemporaries. A novice can spend a week on industry blogs and be able to glean an adequate amount of information to start their own SEO or PPC campaign.

Advancements in Ad Platforms- Paid search platforms are constantly being updated in every search engine, and while the Radar Research report concluded that Google and Yahoo paid search spending decreased from a year ago, these updates will only continue to make paid search an easier, more viable solution for advertisers on a budget. Plus with Automatic Matching, Google is destined to up their Adwords profit, wink.

Advancements in Portal Platforms- I can Google from my Wii. Enough said. Wherever there is a signal there is Google, Yahoo, MSN, YouTube, Facebook or a combination of the five. With this kind of exposure advertisers, both big and small, are clearly noticing that the reach of the web is on a constant climb.

Etc. Etc. Etc… - There is an infinite list of reasons why SEM has risen to unprecedented proportions in the past year, and an economic hiccup is only one of them. While this report helps prove that our industry is in the clear for now, it still does not grasp the scale of innovation, adaptation, and proliferation that the SEM industry has accomplished within the past year to cause this major shift in ad spend.

The Paid Search world was in a tizzy last week over the announcement of Google’s beta testing for its new Automatic Matching (AM) feature for AdWords. Below is Google’s explanation of the tools’ functions, and just for fun, see if you can guess what two words triggered the uproar.

“Automatic Matching automatically extends your campaign’s reach by using surplus budget to serve your ads on relevant search queries that are not already triggered by your keyword lists. By analyzing the structure and content of your website and AdWords campaigns, we deliver more impressions and clicks while maintaining your current CTRs and CPCs.”

So with the news that Google would be using advertiser’s “surplus budget” to fund this feature, the paid search blogosphere exploded with claims that Google will inevitably thrust a money-grab onto its advertisers. Compounding these claims was the ComScore report that came out a day before the AM tool was announced showing Google’s advertisements in the US last month were down 0.3% year-on-year.

So is this a money-grab, or is this just remarkably bad timing for a feature that could benefit Adwords advertisers? In an attempt to reason with the angry mob I’ve listed some quick pros and cons. Hopefully this post will save a liquor store or two.

PRO: This is only a beta test that a small, select number of advertisers are using, and can opt out of at any time. In fact I think this is the biggest pro of them all because after feedback is given, Google can either tweak AM’s problems or ultimately scrap the tool leaving it in the same boat as Googlesheets.

CON: Relevance is not measured by the advertiser. In an example as to how the feature works Google states: “If you sold Adidas shoes on your website, Automatic Matching would automatically crawl your landing page and target your campaigns to queries such as: “shoes” “adidas” “athletic”, etc., and less obvious ones such as “slippers” that our system has determined will benefit you and likely lead to a conversion on your site.” While I’m sure the AM does not override negative keyword listings will the potential leads/sales for unrelated search terms without a bid be worth an individual advertiser’s spend?

PRO: Relevance is not measured by the advertiser. While paid search vets think they can out smart a machine (and most can), a regular mom and pop user with limited experience is usually bidding on a small amount of keywords because they simply do not know any better.

CON: If an AM search result click does not turn into a lead or sale, it’s ultimately Google’s fault, and you end up paying for their mistake

PRO: The AM queries will appear on you search reports, which in turn will provide a source of untapped keywords to monetize.

CON: Nearly the same results can be gleaned by using Google’s keyword research tool without having to risk your budget’s surplus.

PRO: There has never been a time when AdWords has forced advertisers to use a feature that directly benefits their bottom line.

Yes, AM does siphon funds out of a budget surplus, but if you choose to add this feature it’s ultimately your decision. Furthermore Google states that, “AM will never exceed your budget.” While results of this test will more than likely vary across the board I’m sure a certain amount of advertisers (probably small time) will find this tool helpful, while other, experienced advertisers will choose to opt out and run their own campaign.

Continuing the series of keynotes about the future of search, today we’ll be hearing “Generating Next: Search in the Coming Decade”. Unlike the previous panels, this is a panel moderated by Chris Sherman and Gord Hotchkiss. Panel members are Brad Goldberg (Microsoft), Larry Heck (Yahoo), and Peter Norvig (Google).

Question: Will search as we know it today survive?
Larry: When I got in last night, I popped in a cab. The cab driver asked what show I was going to. I said it was a search show. He complained that search is so bad today. “You click and you go back. Click and go back, and never find what you want.” Search will survive, but it must evolve.
Peter: Search will both be more central and more in the background.
Brad: I would break it into two pieces: what the user sees and what is going on in the background. I think we’ve got a good foundation with what is going on in the background, and we’re not going to throw that away. What will change is the user experience.

Question: How do we interact with this huge store of information as humans?
Brad: Changes in interface will force changes all the way down the technology stack. The query information of a voice driven search will likely be different than for text searches.
Peter: The average query will be longer.

Question: What are the implications for search marketers?
Larry: The most exciting opportunities will be as mobil advertising starts to open up. Today it’s a niche.
Peter: Mobile has a tiny screen, so you may not have room for an ad, if you’re going to give the searcher what they want. The ad may have to be served later.

Question: How smart can search get in the next fve years?
Peter: We’re just getting started, and there’s a lot on which we can get better. Such as actually understanding the content. We’re just getting into other media.
Larry: I wonder how much the initial SERP will evolve. A lot of it will come back to users being more sophisticated. Much will be around the user experience.
Brad: How much more effective is the coupling between user and machine going to become? This will make the difference.

Question: Are we expecting too much from users?
Larry: For the last fifteen years, search has been horizontal. Even today, most of the searches are navigational queries. Most page views, however, are within vertical websites.

Question: Speaking of verticals, local search has been held out as the most promising of verticals for some time, but frankly it’s still horrible. What are the problems preventing local search from being good?
Peter: We have to get the content.
Brad: The mom and pop shops need to understand that this is an option.
Peter: One of you guys in the audience needs to come up with a model where a high school student walks down the row of businesses, knocks on their doors, and convinces them that they can help the company become listed.

Question: One can argue that if you truly do improve search algorithms to the point where users get everything they need, there may not be room for advertisers. How will they co-exist?
Brad: There are a lot of economic reasons for that balance to be maintained.
Peter: The advertisers have to provide something of value, that meet the users’ needs.

Question: I want to touch on personalization a bit. We’ve heard that personalization is really hard, and it seems that Google may have backed off a bit from it. How good does it have to be to improve on where we are now?
Peter: Most times people are searching for something new. Personalization won’t help with this. It will help with certain tasks. We’ll see it be more fragmented.
Brad: The challenge of personalization is that you have to have a lot of data about that user, and you have to use it the right way.

Question: With blended search, it seems that search marketers have less and less influence over where their ads show. Do you see this increasing?
Peter: I see this as an opportunity. You can push more types of content via advertising.
Brad: Things will become more like advertising on a regular webpage. It will be a more rich experience. Except that the intent will be more clear.

Question: What area is particularly of interest to you when you look at the interface between humans and the internet?
Peter: The biggest area is the mobile space and figuring out how we get away from being chained to the desktop.

Question: Five years from today, what one technology would you like to have working?
Larry: For me, the one thing would be allowing people to search in more of a vertical way.
Peter: I want to focus on the user experience.
Brad: I want to have access to search everywhere. When you leave the desktop and get in your car, you want to have access to the same functionality.

Just Behave, A Look At Searcher Behavior
Wednesday, February 27, 4:45pm-6:00pm

Moderator: Gord Hotchkiss, President and CEO, Enquiro
Q&A Moderator: Gillian Muessig, President, SEOmoz

Speakers:
Michael Furgeson, Senior User Experience Analyst, Ask.com
Laura Granka, User Experience Research, Google
Ben Hanna, Vice President, Marketing, Business.com

It’s late on Day Two, and live blogging is a young person’s sport, so I don’t expect the amount of detail to be quite to the level of the earlier keynotes I blogged. I’ll likely focus more on what I believe to be the more important points.

That said, this is a topic I’ve really wanted to see. Search behavior is obviously an important aspect of where the search engines are going with relevancy. Understanding how users interact act with search engines, however, is of critical importance to a search marketing in general. The panelists are all representatives of the search engines themselves, so I hope they’ll let us see things from the inside.

Gordon points out that human working (short term) memory has three to seven slots. Some of these slots are generally already filled, but not all of them. Many people use search to fill the rest of these slots.

When looking at a SERP, users tend to look at the first three or four listings on the left. This often includes a combination of organic and paid listings.

Michael from Ask.com goes next. He is going to discuss transactive memory and searcher behavior.

The brain uses a “squadron of simpletons” to interpret reality.

People use their personal networks to access information. Essentially, we “store” that info with other people. This is transactive memory.

Search is becoming a part of transactive memory. The pages you find are a lot like going up to someone who is an expert on the topic. It generally isn’t interactive, however. They can’t give you advice catered to your situation, or debug your computer.

Michael thinks that will come, however. The individual pages need to evolve to be more like a trusted expert in your network.

Now Ben from Business.com is up. He’s going to cover “searching for me versus searching for my company” and provide some oberservations about B2B “search” from different online contexts.

People are influenced by context. We can’t do everything, so we respond to what’s most salient.

Context can affect:

• Risk taking versus conservatism
• Being action-oriented versus passive
• Persistence on a task
• Beliefs about others
• Beliefs about ourselves
• Sense of time

This results effectively in having multiple selves. Each can have unique searching behavior.

Laura from Google is up. She’s going to discuss their internal research.

Search is an acquired skill. Users often start overly broad, searching for “television” for instance. Google addresses this with refinements, helping the user to drill down. Alternative searches might also be offered.

Users tend to rely on trusted/familiar sites. Site Links attempt to address this by providing users with access deeper into a site.

Selecting a good result is hard. Bias is to the results at the top of the page, regardless of actual quality.

Users don’t always know what’s searchable online. Universal Search is an attempt to address this.

Sometimes people just want a quick answer. Certain queries on Google return the actual answer instead of a page.

Question: What does it mean if we search for “televisions”, having a particular brand in our head such as “Sony”, and we don’t find Sony in the results?
Michael: People are adaptable. We tend to get more enjoyment out of things that are complex.
Laura: If you have the word “Sony” in your head, it will still be there and you’ll probably use that in a later search.
Ben: Search does not get as much credit for brand impact as it should.
Gord: If people don’t see the brands they expect, they tend to discount the relevancy of the entire results set.

Question: Data in an earlier seminar suggested that searchers are becoming less patient. Does your data reflect this?
Laura. Yes and no. As we get more gadgets, our need to get data quickly is increasing.
Michael: Customer experience has become more important over time.
Ben: Search has crossed the chasm, and the masses are searching.

Another day; another keynote. Yes, that’s a lame opening line, but I have not had enough coffee yet to write a good one.

This morning’s keynote is titled “Past, Present & Future of Search” and is being given by Louis Monier, VP of Products at Cuill (pronounced “cool”). Monier was at AltaVista in the early days.

Monier is going to talk about people’s need to find things on the web. He is giving his own opinion, not speaking on behalf of Cuill.

The history of search began in the mid-90’s. Search went through the same initial phase as any new technology: rejection. The NYT was particularly harsh.

The industry quickly worked through this phase, and words like “query”, “index” and “relevance” became part of everyday language.

In 1995, AltaVista launched with sixteen million pages in its index. It could search these in 0.35 seconds. This was revolutionary. It was also the first engine that let you see who was linking to your site.

AltaVista almost launched under the name “Gotcha”. Monier managed to prevent that.

In 1998, aggressive marketing (e.g. spam) entered the search industry. Very specific queries were useful, but more general queries returned page after page of non-relevant content. The search engines were very naive in responding to this problem.

At this time, Google was in beta using link analysis to drive relevancy. This addressed the spam concerns of the day. Google stayed focused on search and didn’t follow the call of being a portal.

Today’s world is Google, Yahoo and MSN, and a slew of wannabes.

Queries for company names are easy to address. Queries with huge volumes can be cached and served very cheaply. The rest of the queries have not improved for about ten years.

Why do we get no guidence from the search engines?

Analysis of on-page factors for relevancy calculation has been around since the sixties. Even link/anchor analysis has been around for ten years. Some engines have analyzed actual traffic to impact relevancy (DirectHit).

Does size matter? The search engines regularly change their mind on this subject. Size does not matter, as people get too many results already. Access to a few, well-known sites should be enough. On the other hand, any obsure document might matter to someone, so size matters. A lot.

Do search engines cover enough of the web? Are they covering the same corner of the web? There is good content off the beaten path. Search engines have a responsibility to provide access to all the web.

He expects more from the search engines. He wants they to provide insight to what he wants.

The Future…

Human powered search produces access to high quality content, but the coverage is tiny. Not a scalable solution.

Personlization sounds good. If someone searches for “diamond”, do they want a jewel or a place to play baseball? He would happily volunteer information like location, gender, age range and languages spoken to the search engines to help improve his search results.

One’s search history only helps for things you’ve searched for previously. It doesn’t solve the problem.

Social search believes one’s friends already have the answers. He doesn’t think their history will truly help the queries. How many people would it require to do so?

A specialized search engine (vertical search) can provide better results for narrow queries. But, no one wants to manage 10,000 bookmarks. We’d need a search engine for bookmarks. People may bookmark a few vertical search engines for topics they really care about, but horizontal engines will suffice for more queries.

Natural launguage processing is when search engines try to actually understand the content on a page. The problem is, how much good language is there actually on the web? It’s a good goal, but not very helpful.

Semantic web entails webmasters tagging their pages. It would be an immense amount of work.

Artificial intelligence is the promise of going from “The Flintstones” to “The Jetsons”. Not very realistic.

Using queries for spell checking (which spelling of a word has more SERPs) shows the utility of search beyond navigation.

Another example is putting in an abbreviation. The SERP itself will give you varients of meaning of the abbreviation.

So, what is the future? Disregarding AI, imagine an “answer engine”, as opposed to a search engine. This is a research assistant for your queries. He doesn’t know how soon this will happen, but it is what we need.

Relevancy changes. Before 8/24/2006, there were nine major planets. After 8/24/2006 there are eight major planets.

In conclusion, search is still in its infancy. It is mostly based upon things that are a decade old. However, it’s the only game in town.

Size does matter. If we don’t have the whole web (and tools to make sense of it), who is making those choices for you?

Time for a few questions… “It seems that clustering of results would be the perfect solution. Why hasn’t that caught on?”

It may be too fancy for us. Or, the quality may not be there.

“What do you think about blended search?”

He thinks it’s fine to search all this info. It’s part of the web. However, we’re not doing any better with non-text data than with text data. It’s a good idea, but not going to transform the landscape.

Another SMX conference has come, and I sit waiting for Danny Sullivan’s open keynote. The lights go down and AC/DC’s “Hells Bells” comes over the speakers. And, then Danny is introduced. Danny opens by telling the story of SMX.

The keynote is titled “Search 3.0, 4.0 & Beyond”.

In Danny’s nomenclature, Search 1.0 was the original content based SEO. This lead to keyword stuffing, invisible text, and other fun things like that. Ah, the good ole days.

Search 2.0 used off page factors. Google came out with PageRank, exploiting the “democratic nature of the web”. This lead, of course, to today’s linking market economy.

Search 3.0 is blended results such as Google’s Universal Search. Search 4.0 adds personalized and social results.

Blended results believes that the answer to everything is not a web page. Other forms of content should be returned as well. Google has had verticalized search such as for images for some time, but most people weren’t aware of it. Blended search refers to the idea that vertical search is blended into the rest of the results.

Danny has coined the term Search 3.0 to wake up marketers to the fact that there has been a significant change in the SEO landscape. It’s no longer just about links!

Localized searches are especially vulnerable to this. Often the first result in Google for a localized search comes from Google Local. On smaller monitors (such as with laptops), this may push everything else down below the fold. If you’re not in Google Local, you may not be seen for this sort of search.

Vertical searches often has less competition and tends to be more like Search 1.0 in ranking factors.

Right now, Google is really the only engine engaging in Search 4.0 (personalized search). Rankings changed based upon your previous behavior. If you tend to visit a particular site, it may rank a bit higher.

Currently, Google looks at the following factors for personalized search:

• iGoogle Personalized Home Page content
• Google Bookmarks
• Search History (click)
• Web History (visits)

Social search uses data from social networks to reshape search results. It is vulnerable to influence by “fake friends”. There are also significant privacy implications. The social networks can address this by working at an aggregate level, rather than the individual level.

To drive this on Google, use social network buttons and great content. Wait and see on the other engines.

An understanding of social media marketing will be required to compete in SEO in the future. Together, they are very powerful:

• Build links
• Leverages authority sites
• Delicious may start to influence results
• Google Reader could do the same
• Prepares you for more to come

Search 5.0 may be human refinement. Mahalo.com is an example. It’s cluttered, but has potential. Search Wikia is too early to evaluate.

Human refinement is especially powerful for the changes in relevancy that are caused by current events.

Personally, I find this nomenclature useful and hope the industry adopts it.

Danny comments on a few other issues:

Microhoo - No one knows what will happen or what each company should do. Danny is not convinced by the “scale” or “employees” argument. “Traffic” remains the most compelling argument. Five years into the search business, Microsoft has not been able to move the needle. Danny likes having three big competitors, and hopes that Yahoo makes it as a brand.

I still believe this merger is going to have trouble on the regulatory end. Microsoft has a history in this arena. No, a Microsoft-Yahoo merger doesn’t reach anywhere near monopoly levles, but since when have bureaucrats behaved rationally?

Video to Ally with Search? - Search is boring, hard work and pennies on the dollar. Lots of money in cool video. Pushing video ads isn’t search. AdWords isn’t search. Nor is it with video. Video fo AdWords does look to be search related. This could bring in both money and coolness to search.

Recession to Hurt Search? - Search thrived during the last downturn. Buying may dip, but it won’t stop. Search may be more essential than other types of ads. Danny hopes that Google and others break actual search out from other types of ads.

I would posit that it’s crucial that the search engines break their reporting up by actual ad type. Google in particular has rolled it into a single bucket for way too long.

SEO Reputation Problem - The mainstream media slams us. We slam ourselves. There’s been a string of negative articles in the last couple of months. In the past, we’ve been called as bad or worse. Each time, some see reputation issue as a crisis that must be solved. Yet, SEO continues to grow and be in demand. It sucks, it isn’t fair, but maybe some standards can help ease the emotional burden.

The biggest problem isn’t white hat versus black hat, but ripoff artists that both hats dislike. Maybe we need a centralized complaints area. SEO needs better PR, with more case studies on how it helps. The “Is It Time for Search Marketing Standards?” panel today will look at some of these issues.

I’m sitting on that panel and am looking forward to a spirited discussion!

Apogee recently had the privilege of visiting and studying SEO in Taipei, Taiwan over the last few weeks. Our intention was to study the role SEO plays in Asia and how it differs, if at all, from SEO in the United States. Despite the obvious language barrier, we were able to gain some insight into the industry based on local surveys and interviews.

The percentage of Taiwan Internet users obtaining info from the use of search engines is 80%, similar to that of users in the United States; and although they have a wide variety of local search engine options (popular sites include Coo, Sogou, Bai-du, Monstersearch, Web Classific, Whatsite, Yam, and YesNet), people interviewed often viewed small directories as sponsored and biased. The most used search engines, like here, are Google, Yahoo, and MSN. During agency visits, we discovered that the SEO specialists were very conscious of SEO activity worldwide- not just focusing on the local search engine front, but also pushing to monitor what’s new in Asia and the U.S.

Surveys were given to students at the Taipei American School, National Taiwan University, and Zhong San Elementary in order to compare search habits between students that attended an American school in Taiwan and local Taiwanese schools, respectively. The surveys were originally created online, but after learning that local grade schools, junior highs, and some high schools in Taiwan carry no computers on campus we moved to a more traditional survey method. Results yielded that the American students were more likely to use the Internet on a daily basis. American students were also more likely to both shop online, and use search engines as a primary resource for school-related research. This however, is not the result of a lack of computers in Taiwan classrooms, but more of a culture difference between American and Taiwanese students. In the U.S. students are accustomed to surfing the web almost immediately after receiving a homework assignment. In Asian culture however, the students still perceive books from the library as the best resource for academics, while the Internet is viewed more for leisure. A local grade school teacher explained it best by saying, “Internet is for after-school.”

After our time spent with Taiwanese students we decided to shift our focus to the professional sector of SEO and interview one of the founders of one of Taiwan’s largest SEO firms.

Is SEM a new area for Taiwan? How common are search engine agencies in Taiwan today? Are there many companies dedicated to this area?
It’s a very new concept for Taiwan, or anywhere for that matter. You’ll find that most agencies work abroad because there are no firms dedicated only for Taiwan clients. Like ours, most agencies located in Taiwan are part of larger international branch.

What type of clients do you have? Are there particular websites that have more success with SEM in Asia, whether it is web retail, or services? B2B or B2C?
From 1999-2003: everything was very B2B. After 2004 and the popularity of Google exploded, B2C websites became more common. In the future for Asia, or anywhere for that matter, everything will be through Google and Yahoo because of faster search.

What are the top search engines in Taiwan and has this changed in the past few years?
MSN was the most common search engine prior to 2006. MSN started in Asia, so that was the most familiar, and even among older generations today, it is still the most familiar. As for now and the future, Google will become the most popular. Looking at our cell phones, PDAs, and iPhones all with Google search options, we begin to see MSN is slowly losing ground. Language barriers are also a factor that affects what directories people use to search. There is no Google in Indian language so people in India are less exposed to it. In Singapore though, Google is very popular because it easily translates English and Chinese, or “Singlish” is what we call it here.

You point out an interesting fact with differences in language. Do people use search engines differently? Can you comment regarding search patterns in Taiwan?
Many Asian agencies put great emphasis on link building, but don’t realize this aspect is only one piece of the campaign. They overlook DNS, the importance of blogging, and other aspects. In America, instead of just using links, they research the reason behind the link, if it still exists, problems, etc. Here there’s an obsession with building links just to build links, and many agencies overlook the need to research.

There are no great differences in search patterns. We use search engines just like you do. There is however a difference in the way we generate keywords because you have to consider how words are being searched in a variety of languages. For example, in the U.S. you can call a cell phone a ‘mobile phone’, or ‘cellular phone’. But that’s really about it. On the contrary, in Mandarin there are over 10 different ways to convey “cell phone” including slang. Not to mention different dialects of the language in China. Moreover, Chinese people today are beginning to integrate English words into their regular vocabulary, so now there’s another array of English words to consider when we do our work.

As previously mentioned in the interview, one of the most interesting observations made in Taiwan was seeing the proliferation of Google all over again. Google seems to have an uncanny sense as to how and when to dive into a market. Moreover Google seems to also know how to divide and conquer preexisting competition; doing to MSN in Taiwan, exactly what they did to Yahoo in the U.S. Which raises the question— Will the U.S. search engine market share soon transcend its own borders?