<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Deep Jive Interests &#187; search engine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/category/search-engine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Web 2.0, Social Media, Marketing.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:51:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Branding Matters A Lot For Search Engines &#8230; Unless You&#8217;re Happy With 1%</title>
		<link>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/06/28/branding-matters-a-lot-for-search-engines-unless-youre-happy-with-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/06/28/branding-matters-a-lot-for-search-engines-unless-youre-happy-with-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:44:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Hung</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ask.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mahalo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yahoo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[branding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search engine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/06/28/branding-matters-a-lot-for-search-engines-unless-youre-happy-with-1/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I love studies and I love experiments.  I don&#8217;t love reading through piles of boring data &#8212; but I like the idea of having an idea, testing it out, and then having something to show for it.  Sure, it might (&#8230;)</p><p><a href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/06/28/branding-matters-a-lot-for-search-engines-unless-youre-happy-with-1/">Read the rest of this entry &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love studies and <strong>I love experiments</strong>.  I don&#8217;t love reading through piles of boring data &#8212; but I like the idea of having an idea, testing it out, and then having something to show for it.  Sure, it might not be all that rigorous, but at least its <strong>there</strong>, and you&#8217;re saying something with some order of proof &#8212; rather than just blowing smoke out of your proverbial sphincter.</p>
<p>Take for instance <a href="http://live.psu.edu/story/24878" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/live.psu.edu');" target="_blank">this study at the Pennsylvania State University</a>.  They studied how important branding was with Search Engines.  While they don&#8217;t make any of their methodology available (therefore making it hard to really assess the strength of a study), I think there&#8217;s a great point.</p>
<p>Branding <strong>plays a *big* role in a great many things</strong>, and search engines are no exception.</p>
<p>Specifically, something marketing folk like to call &#8220;top of mind awareness&#8221;, or &#8220;top of mind recall&#8221;, but also how people think about, re-arrange and re-order their perceptions of things.  And in this case, its search engines.</p>
<p>The summary is that they took identical search engine results and ascribed the results to four different search engines, such as Google, Yahoo, MSN Live Search, and some in-house search engine.  When asked which results were the best, its absolutely no surprise that <strong>people favoured the ones labeled &#8220;Google&#8221; and &#8220;Yahoo&#8221;</strong> even though the search results were identical.</p>
<p>And I think this highlights the absolute futility in trying to unseat Google or even Yahoo as a search engine.</p>
<p>Even if your results *are* better, you are fighting a battle of perceptions and reputation.  Its not just an issue of building a better mouse trap.  The &#8220;install&#8221; base for Google / Yahoo is just overwhelming, and sad to say &#8212; they got there first.  If you need a better example of a mediocre products trumping better ones,<strong> business history is littered with them. </strong> Look no further  than Microsoft and Apple.  The qwerty keyboard.  Man, it goes on.</p>
<p>Now, that&#8217;s not to say that you can&#8217;t make a good living or a good company with an average search engine.  <a href="http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2007/05/why_1_of_search.html" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/dondodge.typepad.com');" target="_blank">Don Dodge&#8217;s math pegs 1% of the search market as being worth about a billion dollars</a>.  My math isn&#8217;t all that great, but even if he&#8217;s wrong by a factor of ten &#8230; that&#8217;s still 100 million dollars.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re willing to settle for being a 1% company, then that&#8217;s fine.  I hope that&#8217;s fine with Ask.com, for example or <a href="http://www.mahalo.com" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/www.mahalo.com');" target="_blank">Mahalo</a>.  But unless there is a seismic shift in perceptions, probably both of the search industry at large <strong>*and* </strong>your company,  you&#8217;ll never unseat Google.  That is to say, there would need to be the public perception (fomented by you &#8212; or not) that there is something seriously wrong with Google, <strong>COUPLED </strong>with the perception that your search engine is the answer.</p>
<p>If you can&#8217;t do both of these things, then be happy with your share of the search engine pie.  Even small pieces are worth a lot of cash.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/06/28/branding-matters-a-lot-for-search-engines-unless-youre-happy-with-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

