| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vineri, 10 septembrie 2010
"The America I Believe In"
Instantly Discover How Your Site Ranks
  |
Instantly Discover How Your Site Ranks |
With the launch of our new Small Business Program, which allows companies with any budget to benefit from professonal SEO services, we now offer a Free Instant Website Report. Find out where your site ranks compared to your competitors, and what you can do to increase your website traffic. Our Instant Report compares your site to your competitors’ sites, and reviews and scores the following:
Find out now how your site ranks, and what you can do to improve your website traffic. Click here for your free report. Ready to dominate your competition? Call now and receive $100 off your first month of SEO Services. Our SMB experts specialize in getting your site to the top of Google, where you will receive more traffic, more leads, and more customers. Speak with one of our search experts today: 877-200-2956.
|
Blog | Forums | Press room | News | Careers | Site Map | Privacy Policy Follow us: |
A Day of Service and Remembrance
| ||||||||||||
Daily Snapshot: The President and Bo
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SEOptimise
SEOptimise |
| Is Google Instant aimed at killing “I Feel Lucky” & making more money? Posted: 09 Sep 2010 01:17 PM PDT By now I’m sure everyone’s all seen and had a play around with the new Google Instant search interface. There’s lots of early reaction to this on the web, my own included on Econsultancy yesterday. Obviously the main goal behind this is to provide results much more quickly and look to improve a searchers overall user experience. But has anyone else noticed that the “I feel lucky”, while still listed on the homepage, is actually now redundant?
In my opinion, the majority of Google’s changes and updates look to achieve one of two things:
Ideally both!
However, Google Instant is about increasing speed and reducing the user journey required for searchers. But interestingly it looks like it will make them more money too. By providing results as soon as you start typing, the new search function now bypasses the “I feel lucky” button, which has cost Google an incredible estimated $110 million dollars in potential revenue in the past! Any good conversion optimisation specialist (or accountant) would tell you to remove that button – which is effectively what Google have done. The only way you can click the “I feel lucky” button now is for an empty query string on the Google homepage, and this just takes you to the Google logos page. So that’s clearly a great way of generating extra revenue and that’s all before taking into account the extra paid search ads being served for each query and the potential extra clicks generated while mid-query. Also, for Google – the main reason they are such a huge money-making machine is their huge market share? As I mentioned in my Econsultancy comments, if Instant has a negative reaction this could be a good time for users to switch (most likely to Bing). So how this affects the user has to be the main objective first and foremost. Increasing the average value per searcher is also a goal they will be keen on improving further, and rightly so, but it does little to their revenue if the market share drops as a result. So what do you think, is a major increase in revenue a key and intentional part of Google’s thinking in the launch of Instant? © SEOptimise – Thinking of attending SMX London in May 2010? get a 15% discount code! Interpreting criticism
Check out this letter from the publisher of a magazine you've never heard of to the founder of a little magazine called Readers Digest: But, personally, I don't see how you will be able to get enough subscribers to support it. It is expensive for its size. It isn't illustrated... I have my doubts about the undertaking as a publishing venture. Of course, he was right--given his assumptions. And that's the except part. Criticism of your idea is usually based on assumptions about the world as it is. Jackson Pollock could never have made it as an painter in the world as it was. And Harry Potter was rejected by just about everyone because for it to succeed the way kids read would have to change. The useful element of this sort of criticism isn't that the fact that people in the status quo don't like your idea. Of course they don't. The interesting question is: what about the world as it is would have to change for your idea to be important? In the case of Readers Digest, the key thing that changed was the makeup of who was reading magazines. Most of the people (and it was a lot of people) who subscribed to the Digest didn't read other magazines. And so comparing to other magazines made no sense, except to say, "this is so different from other magazines, the only way you're going to succeed is by selling it to millions of people who don't read those magazines." And Starbucks had no chance if they were going to focus on the sort of person who bought coffee at Dunkin Donuts or a diner, and the iPad couldn't possibly succeed if people were content to use computers the way they were already using them. Keep that in mind the next time a gatekeeper or successful tastemaker explains why you're going to fail.    More Recent Articles
Don't want to get this email anymore? Click the link below to unsubscribe. Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "Seth's Blog" or change your subscription or subscribe 
Abonați-vă la:
Postări (Atom)
PaginiPersoane interesateArhivă blog
Un produs Blogger.
|
Postări
