WebProNews

Category: PaidSearchPro

PaidSearchPro

  • Facebook Adds Search Results Tab To App Insights

    Over the past few months, Facebook has added a number of metrics to App Insights. It’s invaluable data that allows developers to analyze where traffic is coming from, and where they can capitalize on said traffic. Now Facebook is adding a new metric that may prove very important as Graph Search gets into the hands of more people.

    Facebook announced that it’s adding a Search Results tab to App Insights. In essence, this new metric will tell developers how many people found their app through the search bar. The metrics will tell developers how many clicks were organic and paid. It will also tell you if a user clicked on the app from the search bar, and whether or not they found your app via Graph Search. Insights doesn’t cover clicks from mobile of the search results page yet.

    Another change coming to the Facebook platform is an extension of Realtime Updates for the Graph API to include Page posts. Facebook says this change will automatically notify you of any comments or posts on a Page without having to constantly poll said Page. You can read more about it in the documentation.

    The final change this week is an update to Facebook’s Platform policies. The new change comes from the branding section, and requires all “app descriptions, display names and icons adhere to [Facebook’s] Advertising Guidelines.” You can read more about that here.

    Facebook says it received 241 bug reports this week, and 38 were accepted for further review. The social network also fixed 30 bugs over the past week. You can see the full list at the weekly blog post.

  • Is Yahoo Poised For A Search Comeback?

    Yahoo released its earnings report for Q4 and the full year 2012. The report was better than many analysts had expected, and this was helped significantly by better-than-expected search performance from the company who has outsourced its search back-end to Bing.

    Here are the search highlights from the release:

    • GAAP search revenue was $482 million for the fourth quarter of 2012, a 4 percent increase compared to $465 million for the fourth quarter of 2011. GAAP search revenue was $1,886 million for the full year of 2012, a 2 percent increase compared to $1,853 million for the prior year.
    • Search revenue ex-TAC was $427 million for the fourth quarter of 2012, a 14 percent increase compared to $376 million for the fourth quarter of 2011. Search revenue ex-TAC was $1,611 million for the full year of 2012, a 9 percent increase compared to $1,478 millionfor the prior year.
    • Paid clicks, or the number of clicks on sponsored listings on Yahoo! Properties and Affiliate sites, increased approximately 11 percent compared to the fourth quarter of 2011 and increased approximately 8 percent compared to the third quarter of 2012.
    • Price-per-click increased approximately 1 percent compared to the fourth quarter of 2011 and decreased approximately 2 percent compared to the third quarter of 2012.

    During a conference call following the report’s release, CEO Marissa Mayer, a major player in Google’s search efforts over the years, indicated that search is a big priority for the former king of search engines. Wired quotes her:

    “Overall in search, it’s a key area of investment for us,” Mayer said. “We need to invest in a lot of interface improvements. All of the innovations in search are going to happen at the user interface level moving forward and we need to invest in those features both on the desktop and on mobile and I think both ultimately will be key plays for us.”

    “We have a big investment we want to make and a big push on search. We have lost some share in recent years and we’d like to regain some of that share and we have some ideas as to how.”

    Despite rumors that have been whispered throughout the industry from time to time, there’s nothing here to suggest that Yahoo and Bing will be breaking its deal off prematurely, as Mayer seems much more concerned with the front end. It will be interesting to see what becomes of it.

    The company has already been pushing out a redesigned home page to users (though we’ve seen more complaints than praise).

    Can Yahoo make a comeback in search? What do you think?

  • Yahoo Earnings Better Than Expected With Some Help From Search

    Yahoo just released its earnings for the fourth quarter and full year 2012, beating analysts’ expectations, and perhaps more noteworthy, showing solid signs for Yahoo’s search business.

    GAAP revenue for the quarter was $1,346 million. For the year, it was $4,987 million. Revenue ex-TAC for the quarter were $1,221 million. For the year, they were $4,468 million. Non-GAAP income from operations was $283 million. For the year, it was $825 million.

    GAAP search revenue for the quarter was $482 million, up 4% year-over-year. GAAP search revenue was $1,886 million for the year, up 2% year-over-year. Search revenue ex-TAC was $427 million for the quarte (up 14% year-over-year) and $1,611 million for the year (up 9% year-over-year). Paid clicks were up 11% year-over-year and 8% quarter over quarter. PPCs increased by 1% year-over-year, but decreased by 2% quarter-over-quarter.

    CEO Marissa Mayer said, “I’m proud of Yahoo!’s 2012 and fourth quarter results. In 2012, Yahoo! exhibited revenue growth for the first time in 4 years, with revenue up 2 percent year-over-year. During the quarter we made progress by growing our executive team, signing key partnerships including those with NBC Sports and CBS Television, and launching terrific mobile experiences for Yahoo! Mail and Flickr. At the same time, we achieved tremendous internal transformation in the culture, energy and execution of the Company.”

    Here’s the release in its entirety:

    SUNNYVALE, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) today reported results for the fourth quarter and full year endedDecember 31, 2012.

    Q4 2012 Full Year 2012
    GAAP revenue $1,346 million $4,987 million
    Revenue ex-TAC $1,221 million $4,468 million
    GAAP income from operations $190 million $566 million
    Non-GAAP income from operations $283 million $825 million
    GAAP net earnings per diluted share $0.23 $3.28
    Non-GAAP net earnings per diluted share $0.32 $1.17

    “I’m proud of Yahoo!’s 2012 and fourth quarter results. In 2012, Yahoo! exhibited revenue growth for the first time in 4 years, with revenue up 2 percent year-over-year,” said Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer. “During the quarter we made progress by growing our executive team, signing key partnerships including those with NBC Sports and CBS Television, and launching terrific mobile experiences for Yahoo! Mail and Flickr. At the same time, we achieved tremendous internal transformation in the culture, energy and execution of the Company.”

    GAAP revenue was $1,346 million for the fourth quarter of 2012, a 2 percent increase from the fourth quarter of 2011. Revenue excluding traffic acquisition costs (“revenue ex-TAC”) was $1,221 million for the fourth quarter of 2012, a 4 percent increase compared to the fourth quarter of 2011. GAAP revenue was $4,987 million for the full year of 2012, flat compared to the prior year. Revenue ex-TAC was $4,468 million for the full year of 2012, a 2 percent increase from the prior year.

    Adjusted EBITDA for the fourth quarter of 2012 was $509 million, an 8 percent increase from the same period of 2011. Adjusted EBITDA was$1,699 million for the full year of 2012, a 3 percent increase from the prior year.

    GAAP income from operations decreased 22 percent to $190 million in the fourth quarter of 2012, compared to $242 million in the fourth quarter of 2011. Non-GAAP income from operations was $283 million in the fourth quarter of 2012 compared to $259 million in the fourth quarter of 2011. GAAP income from operations for the full year of 2012 was $566 million, compared to $800 million for the prior year. Non-GAAP income from operations was $825 million in both years.

    GAAP net earnings for the fourth quarter of 2012 was $272 million, an 8 percent decrease from the same period of 2011. Non-GAAP net earnings for the fourth quarter of 2012 was $370 million, a 20 percent increase from the same period of 2011. GAAP net earnings for the full year of 2012 was $3,945 million, compared to $1,049 million for the prior year. For the full year of 2012, GAAP net earnings included a net gain of $2,755 million related to the sale of Alibaba shares. Non-GAAP net earnings for the full year of 2012 was $1,407 million, a 35 percent increase from the prior year.

    GAAP net earnings per diluted share was $0.23 in the fourth quarter of 2012, compared to $0.24 in the fourth quarter of 2011. Non-GAAP net earnings per diluted share was $0.32 in the fourth quarter of 2012, compared to $0.25 in the fourth quarter of 2011. GAAP net earnings per diluted share was $3.28 for the full year of 2012, compared to $0.82 for the prior year. For the full year of 2012, GAAP net earnings included a net gain of $2,755 million, or $2.29 per diluted share, related to the sale of Alibaba shares. Non-GAAP net earnings per diluted share was$1.17 for the full year of 2012, compared to $0.81 for the prior year.

    Business Highlights

    • Yahoo! further strengthened its board of directors, appointing Max Levchin, a computer scientist, serial entrepreneur and angel investor with extensive experience building enduring Internet companies.
    • The Company made significant improvements to two of its core products, Yahoo! Mail and Flickr. The new Yahoo! Mail is faster, easier to use and available across the Web and on Windows 8, iPhone/iPod touch and Android. Yahoo!’s redesigned Flickr app for iPhone and iPod touch makes it easier to capture, share and discover photos. The new app allows users to share photos by email, with the Flickr community or via Facebook, Twitter or Tumblr.
    • Yahoo! signed distribution and branding deals to strengthen two of its leading media properties.
      • Yahoo! Sports and NBC Sports announced a partnership to deliver news, fantasy games, and video coverage of sporting events — combining two of the most trusted names in sports.
      • Yahoo! and CBS Television Distribution launched omg! Insider, a multiplatform entertainment news series that combines the popularity of CBS Television Distribution’s The Insider with the online reach of omg!.
    • The Company also announced a deal with Wenner Media to further enhance the content and reach of omg! and Yahoo! Music by joining forces with the Us WeeklyRolling Stone, and Men’s Journal franchises.
    • Yahoo! acquired mobile app developers Stamped and OnTheAir, accelerating the Company’s efforts to build a world-class team of mobile engineers, product managers and designers.
    • Yahoo! expanded its partnership with Samsung, enabling Samsung SmartTV users to engage more with their favorite shows and commercials. With the touch of a remote, connected tablet or phone, Samsung SmartTV viewers who use Yahoo!’s Connected TV technologies, can easily access content or offers related to their favorite TV shows or commercials.

    Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2012 Financial Highlights

    Display

    • GAAP display revenue was $591 million for the fourth quarter of 2012, a 3 percent decrease compared to $612 million for the fourth quarter of 2011. GAAP display revenue was $2,143 million for the full year of 2012, a 1 percent decrease compared to $2,160 millionfor the prior year.
    • Display revenue ex-TAC was $520 million for the fourth quarter of 2012, a 5 percent decrease compared to $546 million for the fourth quarter of 2011. Display revenue ex-TAC was $1,899 million for the full year of 2012, a 2 percent decrease compared to $1,932 millionfor the prior year.
    • The number of ads sold on core Yahoo! Properties decreased approximately 10 percent compared to the fourth quarter of 2011 and increased approximately 3 percent compared to the third quarter of 2012.
    • Price-per-ad on core Yahoo! Properties increased approximately 7 percent compared to the fourth quarter of 2011 and increased approximately 15 percent compared to the third quarter of 2012.

    Search

    • GAAP search revenue was $482 million for the fourth quarter of 2012, a 4 percent increase compared to $465 million for the fourth quarter of 2011. GAAP search revenue was $1,886 million for the full year of 2012, a 2 percent increase compared to $1,853 million for the prior year.
    • Search revenue ex-TAC was $427 million for the fourth quarter of 2012, a 14 percent increase compared to $376 million for the fourth quarter of 2011. Search revenue ex-TAC was $1,611 million for the full year of 2012, a 9 percent increase compared to $1,478 millionfor the prior year.
    • Paid clicks, or the number of clicks on sponsored listings on Yahoo! Properties and Affiliate sites, increased approximately 11 percent compared to the fourth quarter of 2011 and increased approximately 8 percent compared to the third quarter of 2012.
    • Price-per-click increased approximately 1 percent compared to the fourth quarter of 2011 and decreased approximately 2 percent compared to the third quarter of 2012.

    Cash Balance

    • Cash, cash equivalents, and investments in marketable debt securities were $6 billion at December 31, 2012 compared to $2.5 billionat December 31, 2011, an increase of $3.5 billion.
    • During the fourth quarter of 2012, Yahoo! repurchased 80 million shares for $1.5 billion. During the year ended December 31, 2012,Yahoo! repurchased 126 million shares for $2.2 billion.

    Conference Call

    Yahoo! will host a conference call to discuss fourth quarter and full year 2012 results at 5 p.m. Eastern Time today. On the conference call,Yahoo! will also provide its business outlook for the first quarter and full year of 2013. A live Webcast of the conference call, together with supplemental financial information, can be accessed through the Company’s Investor Relations Website athttp://investor.yahoo.com/results.cfm. In addition, an archive of the Webcast can be accessed through the same link. An audio replay of the call will be available for one week following the conference call by calling (888) 286-8010 or (617) 801-6888, reservation number: 30622830.

    Non-GAAP Financial Measures

    This press release and its attachments include the following financial measures defined as non-GAAP financial measures by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”): revenue ex-TAC; adjusted EBITDA; non-GAAP income from operations; non-GAAP net earnings; non-GAAP net earnings per diluted share; and free cash flow.

    Revenue ex-TAC is GAAP revenue less traffic acquisition costs. Adjusted EBITDA, non-GAAP income from operations, non-GAAP net earnings and non-GAAP earnings per diluted share exclude certain gains, losses, and expenses that we do not believe are indicative of ongoing results. Adjusted EBITDA also excludes taxes, depreciation, amortization of intangible assets, stock-based compensation expense, other income, net (which includes interest), earnings in equity interests, and net income attributable to noncontrolling interests. Free cash flow is GAAP net cash provided by (used in) operating activities (adjusted to include excess tax benefits from stock-based awards), less acquisition of property and equipment, net and dividends received from equity investees.

    These measures may be different than non-GAAP financial measures used by other companies. The presentation of this financial information is not intended to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for the financial information prepared and presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). Explanations of the Company’s non-GAAP financial measures and reconciliations of these financial measures to the GAAP financial measures the Company considers most comparable are included in the accompanying “Note to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements,” “Supplemental Financial Data and GAAP to Non-GAAP Reconciliations,” and “GAAP to Non-GAAP Reconciliations.”

    About Yahoo!

    Yahoo! is focused on making the world’s daily habits inspiring and entertaining. By creating highly personalized experiences for our users, we keep people connected to what matters most to them, across devices and around the globe. In turn, we create value for advertisers by connecting them with the audiences that build their businesses. Yahoo! is headquartered in Sunnyvale, Calif., and has offices located throughout the Americas, Asia Pacific (APAC) and the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) regions. For more information, visit the pressroom (pressroom.yahoo.net) or the company blog (yodel.yahoo.com).

    “Affiliates” refers to the third-party entities that have integrated Yahoo!’s advertising offerings into their Websites or other offerings (those Websites and other offerings, “Affiliate sites”).

    “Alibaba” means Alibaba Group Holding Limited.

    “Search Agreement” refers to the Search and Advertising Services and Sales Agreement between Yahoo! and Microsoft Corporation, as amended.

    “TAC” refers to traffic acquisition costs. TAC consists of payments to Affiliates and payments made to companies that direct consumer and business traffic to Yahoo! Properties.

    “Yahoo! Properties” refers to the online properties and services that Yahoo! provides to users.

    This press release contains forward-looking statements concerning Yahoo!’s expected financial performance and Yahoo!’s strategic and operational plans (including, without limitation, the quotation from management). Risks and uncertainties may cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted, and reported results should not be considered as an indication of future performance. The potential risks and uncertainties include, among others, the impact of changes to our management, organizational structure and strategic business plan;Yahoo!’s ability to compete with new or existing competitors; reduction in spending by, or loss of, advertising customers; risks associated with the Search Agreement with Microsoft Corporation; risks related to Yahoo!’s regulatory environment; interruptions or delays in the provision of Yahoo!’s services; security breaches; acceptance by users of new products and services; risks related to joint ventures and the integration of acquisitions; risks related to Yahoo!’s international operations; adverse results in litigation; Yahoo!’s ability to protect its intellectual property and the value of its brands; dependence on third parties for technology, services, content, and distribution; and general economic conditions. All information set forth in this press release and its attachments is as of January 28, 2013. Yahoo! does not intend, and undertakes no duty, to update this information to reflect subsequent events or circumstances. More information about potential factors that could affect the Company’s business and financial results is included under the captions “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, as amended, and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, which are on file with the SEC and available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Additional information will also be set forth in those sections in Yahoo!’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, which will be filed with the SEC in the first quarter of 2013.

    Yahoo!, the Yahoo! logos, omg! and Flickr are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Yahoo! Inc. All other names are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of their respective owners.

    Yahoo! Inc.
    Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
    (in thousands)
    December 31, December 31,
    2011 2012
    ASSETS
    Current assets:
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 1,562,390 $ 2,667,778
    Short-term marketable debt securities 493,189 1,516,175
    Accounts receivable, net 1,037,474 1,008,448
    Prepaid expenses and other current assets 359,483 460,312
    Total current assets 3,452,536 5,652,713
    Long-term marketable debt securities 474,338 1,838,425
    Alibaba Group Preference Shares 816,261
    Property and equipment, net 1,730,888 1,685,845
    Goodwill 3,900,752 3,826,749
    Intangible assets, net 254,600 153,973
    Other long-term assets 220,628 289,130
    Investments in equity interests 4,749,044 2,840,157
    Total assets $ 14,782,786 $ 17,103,253
    LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
    Current liabilities:
    Accounts payable $ 166,595 $ 184,831
    Accrued expenses and other current liabilities 846,044 808,475
    Deferred revenue 194,722 296,926
    Total current liabilities 1,207,361 1,290,232
    Long-term deferred revenue 43,639 407,560
    Capital lease and other long-term liabilities 134,905 124,587
    Deferred and other long-term tax liabilities, net 815,534 675,271
    Total liabilities 2,201,439 2,497,650
    Total Yahoo! Inc. stockholders’ equity 12,541,067 14,560,200
    Noncontrolling interests 40,280 45,403
    Total equity 12,581,347 14,605,603
    Total liabilities and equity $ 14,782,786 $ 17,103,253

     

    Yahoo! Inc.
    Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income
    (in thousands, except per share amounts)
    Three Months Ended Year Ended
    December 31, December 31,
    2011 2012 2011 2012
    Revenue $ 1,324,153 $ 1,345,807 $ 4,984,199 $ 4,986,566
    Operating expenses:
    Cost of revenue – Traffic acquisition costs 155,453 124,961 603,371 518,906
    Cost of revenue – Other 263,609 287,147 983,626 1,101,660
    Sales and marketing 289,366 274,122 1,122,193 1,101,572
    Product development 235,810 240,417 919,368 885,824
    General and administrative 112,614 144,610 497,288 540,247
    Amortization of intangibles 8,525 7,926 33,592 35,819
    Restructuring charges, net 16,329 76,634 24,420 236,170
    Total operating expenses 1,081,706 1,155,817 4,183,858 4,420,198
    Income from operations 242,447 189,990 800,341 566,368
    Other income, net 9,768 17,730 27,175 4,647,839
    Income before income taxes and earnings in equity interests 252,215 207,720 827,516 5,214,207
    Provision for income taxes (78,287 ) (83,007 ) (241,767 ) (1,940,043 )
    Earnings in equity interests 127,063 148,939 476,920 676,438
    Net income 300,991 273,652 1,062,669 3,950,602
    Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests (5,419 ) (1,385 ) (13,842 ) (5,123 )
    Net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc. $ 295,572 $ 272,267 $ 1,048,827 $ 3,945,479
    Net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc. common stockholders per share – diluted $ 0.24 $ 0.23 $ 0.82 $ 3.28
    Shares used in per share calculation – diluted 1,241,009 1,168,336 1,282,282 1,202,906
    Stock-based compensation expense by function:
    Cost of revenue – Other $ 1,010 $ 2,207 $ 3,489 $ 10,078
    Sales and marketing 22,291 22,161 65,120 82,115
    Product development 25,291 19,955 89,587 74,284
    General and administrative 10,255 13,139 45,762 57,888
    Restructuring expense accelerations (reversals), net 1,492 214 (3,429 )
    Supplemental Financial Data:
    Revenue ex-TAC $ 1,168,700 $ 1,220,846 $ 4,380,828 $ 4,467,660
    Adjusted EBITDA $ 469,453 $ 509,024 $ 1,654,583 $ 1,698,839
    Free cash flow(1)(2) $ 327,013 $ (2,044,502 ) $ 725,801 $ (834,865 )
    (1) The year ended December 31, 2012 includes a payment of $550 million from Alibaba in satisfaction of certain future royalty payments under the existing technology and intellectual property license agreement with Alibaba.
    (2) The three months and year ended December 31, 2012 include a cash tax payment of $2.3 billion which is related to the sale of Alibabashares.

     

    Yahoo! Inc.
    Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
    (in thousands)
    Three Months Ended Year Ended
    December 31, December 31,
    2011 2012 2011 2012
    CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
    Net income $ 300,991 $ 273,652 $ 1,062,669 $ 3,950,602
    Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:
    Depreciation 125,693 148,213 530,516 549,235
    Amortization of intangible assets 29,939 21,279 117,723 105,366
    Stock-based compensation expense, net 60,339 57,462 204,172 220,936
    Non-cash restructuring charges 990 69,434 990 109,896
    Accrued dividend income related to Alibaba Group Preference Shares (20,000 ) (20,000 )
    Tax benefits (detriments) from stock-based awards 23,523 (21,969 ) 33,497 (31,440 )
    Excess tax benefits from stock-based awards (25,966 ) (5,093 ) (70,680 ) (35,844 )
    Deferred income taxes 1,652 121,968 70,392 (769,320 )
    Earnings in equity interests (127,063 ) (148,939 ) (476,920 ) (676,438 )
    Dividends received from Yahoo Japan 75,391 83,648
    Gain related to sale of Alibaba Group shares (4,603,322 )
    Gain from sale of investments, assets, and other, net (8,416 ) 6,468 4,405 (11,840 )
    Changes in assets and liabilities, net of effects of acquisitions:
    Accounts receivable, net (117,992 ) (52,190 ) 38,100 34,752
    Prepaid expenses and other 87,441 37,470 97,849 78,529
    Accounts payable 27,000 35,204 (316 ) 12,747
    Accrued expenses and other liabilities 61,012 (2,373,163 ) (290,070 ) 255,799
    Deferred revenue (7,809 ) (49,671 ) (73,912 ) 465,140
    Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities (1)(2) 431,334 (1,899,875 ) 1,323,806 (281,554 )
    CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
    Acquisition of property and equipment, net (130,287 ) (149,720 ) (593,294 ) (505,507 )
    Purchases of marketable debt securities (95,232 ) (1,681,467 ) (1,708,530 ) (3,520,327 )
    Proceeds from sales of marketable debt securities 441,719 56,968 1,508,948 741,947
    Proceeds from maturities of marketable debt securities 89,305 130,750 1,316,197 381,403
    Proceeds related to sale of Alibaba shares, net 6,247,728
    Purchases of intangible assets (799 ) (711 ) (11,819 ) (3,799 )
    Proceeds from the sale of investments 21,271 26,132
    Acquisitions, net of cash acquired (255,018 ) (5,716 ) (323,830 ) (5,716 )
    Other investing activities, net (818 ) 9,604 (6,581 ) 183
    Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities 48,870 (1,640,292 ) 202,362 3,362,044
    CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
    Proceeds from issuance of common stock, net 49,529 101,951 156,226 218,371
    Repurchases of common stock (416,237 ) (1,451,462 ) (1,618,741 ) (2,167,841 )
    Excess tax benefits from stock-based awards 25,966 5,093 70,680 35,844
    Tax withholdings related to net share settlements of restricted stock awards and restricted stock units (8,712 ) (12,842 ) (44,761 ) (60,939 )
    Other financing activities, net (11,029 ) (1,373 ) (19,362 ) (4,892 )
    Net cash used in financing activities (360,483 ) (1,358,633 ) (1,455,958 ) (1,979,457 )
    Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents (21,550 ) 6,178 (34,247 ) 4,355
    Net change in cash and cash equivalents 98,171 (4,892,622 ) 35,963 1,105,388
    Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period 1,464,219 7,560,400 1,526,427 1,562,390
    Cash and cash equivalents, end of period $ 1,562,390 $ 2,667,778 $ 1,562,390 $ 2,667,778
    (1) The year ended December 31, 2012 includes a payment of $550 million from Alibaba in satisfaction of certain future royalty payments under the existing technology and intellectual property license agreement with Alibaba.
    (2) The three months and year ended December 31, 2012 include a cash tax payment of $2.3 billion which is related to the sale of Alibabashares.

     

    Yahoo! Inc.

    Note to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

    This press release and its attachments include the non-GAAP financial measures of revenue excluding traffic acquisition costs (“revenue ex-TAC”); adjusted EBITDA; non-GAAP income from operations; non-GAAP net earnings; non-GAAP net earnings per diluted share; and free cash flow, which are reconciled to revenue; net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc. (in the case of adjusted EBITDA and non-GAAP net earnings); income from operations; net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc. common stockholders per share — diluted; and net cash provided by (used in) operating activities, which we believe are the most comparable GAAP measures. We use these non-GAAP financial measures for internal managerial purposes and to facilitate period-to-period comparisons. We describe limitations specific to each non-GAAP financial measure below. Management generally compensates for limitations in the use of non-GAAP financial measures by relying on comparable GAAP financial measures and providing investors with a reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure or measures. Further, management uses non-GAAP financial measures only in addition to and in conjunction with results presented in accordance with GAAP. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures reflect an additional way of viewing aspects of our operations that, when viewed with our GAAP results, provide a more complete understanding of factors and trends affecting our business. These non-GAAP measures should be considered as a supplement to, and not as a substitute for, or superior to, revenue, net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc., income from operations, net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc. common stockholders per share – diluted and net cash provided by (used in) operating activities, calculated in accordance with GAAP.

    Revenue ex-TAC is a non-GAAP financial measure defined as GAAP revenue less TAC. TAC consists of payments made to third-party entities that have integrated our advertising offerings into their Websites or other offerings (those Websites and other offerings, “Affiliate sites”) and payments made to companies that direct consumer and business traffic to Yahoo!’s online properties and services (“Yahoo! Properties”). Based on the terms of the Search Agreement with Microsoft, Microsoft retains a revenue share of 12 percent of the net (after TAC) search revenue generated on Yahoo! Properties and Affiliate sites in transitioned markets. Yahoo! reports the net revenue it receives under the Search Agreement as revenue and no longer presents the associated TAC. Accordingly, for transitioned markets Yahoo! reports GAAP revenue associated with the Search Agreement on a net (after TAC) basis rather than a gross basis. For markets that have not yet transitioned, revenue continues to be recorded on a gross basis, and TAC is recorded as a part of operating expenses. We present revenue ex-TAC to provide investors a metric used by the Company for evaluation and decision-making purposes during the Microsoft transition and to provide investors with comparable revenue numbers when comparing periods preceding, during and following the transition period. A limitation of revenue ex-TAC is that it is a measure which we have defined for internal and investor purposes that may be unique to the Company, and therefore it may not enhance the comparability of our results to other companies in our industry who have similar business arrangements but address the impact of TAC differently. Management compensates for these limitations by also relying on the comparable GAAP financial measures of revenue and total operating expenses, which includes TAC in non-transitioned markets.

    Adjusted EBITDA is defined as net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc. before taxes, depreciation, amortization of intangible assets, stock-based compensation expense, other income, net (which includes interest), earnings in equity interests, net income attributable to noncontrolling interests and other gains, losses, and expenses that we do not believe are indicative of our ongoing results. Yahoo! presents adjusted EBITDA because the exclusion of certain gains, losses, and expenses facilitates comparisons of the operating performance of our Company on a period to period basis. Adjusted EBITDA has limitations as an analytical tool and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for results reported under GAAP. These limitations include: adjusted EBITDA does not reflect tax payments and such payments reflect a reduction in cash available to us; adjusted EBITDA does not reflect the periodic costs of certain capitalized tangible and intangible assets used in generating revenues in our businesses; adjusted EBITDA does not include stock-based compensation expense related to the Company’s workforce; adjusted EBITDA also excludes other income, net (which includes interest), earnings in equity interests, net income attributable to noncontrolling interests and other gains, losses, and expenses that we do not believe are indicative of our ongoing results, and these items may represent a reduction or increase in cash available to us; and adjusted EBITDA is a measure that may be unique to the Company, and therefore it may not enhance the comparability of our results to other companies in our industry. Management compensates for these limitations by also relying on the comparable GAAP financial measure of net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc., which includes taxes, depreciation, amortization, stock-based compensation expense, other income, net (which includes interest), earnings in equity interests, net income attributable to noncontrolling interests and the other gains, losses and expenses that are excluded from adjusted EBITDA.

    Non-GAAP income from operations is defined as income from operations excluding certain gains, losses, and expenses that we do not believe are indicative of our ongoing operating results. We consider non-GAAP income from operations to be a profitability measure which facilitates the forecasting of our operating results for future periods and allows for the comparison of our results to historical periods. A limitation of non-GAAP income from operations is that it does not include all items that impact our income from operations for the period. Management compensates for this limitation by also relying on the comparable GAAP financial measure of income from operations which includes the gains, losses, and expenses that are excluded from non-GAAP income from operations.

    Non-GAAP net earnings is defined as net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc. excluding certain gains, losses, expenses, and their related tax effects that we do not believe are indicative of our ongoing results. We consider non-GAAP net earnings and non-GAAP net earnings per diluted share to be profitability measures which facilitate the forecasting of our results for future periods and allow for the comparison of our results to historical periods. A limitation of non-GAAP net earnings and non-GAAP net earnings per diluted share is that they do not include all items that impact our net income and net income per diluted share for the period. Management compensates for this limitation by also relying on the comparable GAAP financial measures of net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc. and net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc.common stockholders per share – diluted, both of which include the gains, losses, expenses and related tax effects that are excluded from non-GAAP net earnings and non-GAAP net earnings per diluted share.

    Free cash flow is a non-GAAP financial measure defined as net cash provided by (used in) operating activities (adjusted to include excess tax benefits from stock-based awards), less acquisition of property and equipment, net and dividends received from equity investees. We consider free cash flow to be a liquidity measure which provides useful information to management and investors about the amount of cash generated by the business after the acquisition of property and equipment, which can then be used for strategic opportunities including, among others, investing in the Company’s business, making strategic acquisitions, strengthening the balance sheet, and repurchasing stock. A limitation of free cash flow is that it does not represent the total increase or decrease in the cash balance for the period. Management compensates for this limitation by also relying on the net change in cash and cash equivalents as presented in the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated statements of cash flows prepared in accordance with GAAP which incorporates all cash movements during the period.

    Yahoo! Inc.
    Supplemental Financial Data and GAAP to Non-GAAP Reconciliations
    (in thousands)
    Three Months Ended Year Ended
    December 31, December 31,
    2011 2012 2011 2012
    Revenue for groups of similar services:
    Display $ 612,047 $ 590,627 $ 2,160,309 $ 2,142,818
    Search 464,530 481,957 1,853,110 1,885,860
    Other 247,576 273,223 970,780 957,888
    Total revenue $ 1,324,153 $ 1,345,807 $ 4,984,199 $ 4,986,566
    Revenue excluding traffic acquisition costs (“revenue ex-TAC”) for groups of similar services:
    GAAP display revenue $ 612,047 $ 590,627 $ 2,160,309 $ 2,142,818
    TAC associated with display revenue (66,426 ) (70,218 ) (227,822 ) (243,557 )
    Display revenue ex-TAC $ 545,621 $ 520,409 $ 1,932,487 $ 1,899,261
    GAAP search revenue $ 464,530 $ 481,957 $ 1,853,110 $ 1,885,860
    TAC associated with search revenue for non-transitioned markets (89,027 ) (54,743 ) (375,409 ) (275,349 )
    Search revenue ex-TAC $ 375,503 $ 427,214 $ 1,477,701 $ 1,610,511
    Other GAAP revenue $ 247,576 $ 273,223 $ 970,780 $ 957,888
    TAC associated with other GAAP revenue (140 )
    Other revenue ex-TAC $ 247,576 $ 273,223 $ 970,640 $ 957,888
    Revenue ex-TAC:
    GAAP revenue $ 1,324,153 $ 1,345,807 $ 4,984,199 $ 4,986,566
    TAC (155,453 ) (124,961 ) (603,371 ) (518,906 )
    Revenue ex-TAC $ 1,168,700 $ 1,220,846 $ 4,380,828 $ 4,467,660
    Revenue ex-TAC by segment:
    Americas:
    GAAP revenue $ 884,780 $ 960,118 $ 3,302,989 $ 3,461,633
    TAC (45,072 ) (52,357 ) (160,110 ) (182,511 )
    Revenue ex-TAC $ 839,708 $ 907,761 $ 3,142,879 $ 3,279,122
    EMEA:
    GAAP revenue $ 164,238 $ 113,527 $ 629,383 $ 472,061
    TAC (54,559 ) (16,982 ) (221,916 ) (114,230 )
    Revenue ex-TAC $ 109,679 $ 96,545 $ 407,467 $ 357,831
    Asia Pacific:
    GAAP revenue $ 275,135 $ 272,162 $ 1,051,827 $ 1,052,872
    TAC (55,822 ) (55,622 ) (221,345 ) (222,165 )
    Revenue ex-TAC $ 219,313 $ 216,540 $ 830,482 $ 830,707
    Total revenue ex-TAC $ 1,168,700 $ 1,220,846 $ 4,380,828 $ 4,467,660
    Direct costs by segment (3):
    Americas $ 187,467 $ 183,236 $ 696,103 $ 733,316
    EMEA 41,615 41,325 165,750 161,990
    Asia Pacific 55,361 60,046 225,417 224,114
    Global operating costs (4) 414,804 443,272 1,638,975 1,671,958
    Restructuring charges, net 16,329 76,634 24,420 236,170
    Depreciation and amortization 151,830 168,769 625,864 649,267
    Stock-based compensation expense 58,847 57,574 203,958 224,477
    Income from operations $ 242,447 $ 189,990 $ 800,341 $ 566,368
             
    Reconciliation of net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc. to adjusted EBITDA:
    Net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc. $ 295,572 $ 272,267 $ 1,048,827 $ 3,945,479
    Costs associated with the Korea business and its closure (5) 99,485 99,485
    Deal-related costs related to the sale of Alibaba shares 6,500
    Depreciation and amortization 151,830 168,769 625,864 649,267
    Stock-based compensation expense 58,847 57,574 203,958 224,477
    Restructuring charges, net (5) 16,329 (6,794 ) 24,420 152,742
    Other income, net  (9,768 )  (17,730 )  (27,175 )  (4,647,839 )
    Provision for income taxes  78,287  83,007  241,767  1,940,043
    Earnings in equity interests  (127,063 )  (148,939 )  (476,920 )  (676,438 )
    Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests  5,419  1,385  13,842  5,123
    Adjusted EBITDA $ 469,453 $ 509,024 $ 1,654,583 $ 1,698,839
    Reconciliation of net cash provided by (used in) operating activities to free cash flow:  
    Cash provided by (used in) operating activities $ 431,334 $ (1,899,875 ) $ 1,323,806 $ (281,554 )
    Acquisition of property and equipment, net (130,287 ) (149,720 ) (593,294 ) (505,507 )
    Dividends received from equity investees (75,391 ) (83,648 )
    Excess tax benefits from stock-based awards 25,966 5,093 70,680 35,844
    Free cash flow (1)(2) $ 327,013 $ (2,044,502 ) $ 725,801 $ (834,865 )
    (1) The year ended December 31, 2012 includes a payment of $550 million from Alibaba in satisfaction of certain future royalty payments under the existing technology and intellectual property license agreement with Alibaba.
    (2) The three months and year ended December 31, 2012 include a cash tax payment of $2.3 billion which is related to the sale of Alibabashares.
    (3) Direct costs for each segment include cost of revenue (excluding TAC) and other operating expenses that are directly attributable to the segment such as employee compensation expense (excluding stock-based compensation expense), local sales and marketing expenses, and facilities expenses. Beginning in 2012, marketing and customer advocacy costs are managed locally and included as direct costs for each segment. Prior period amounts have been revised to conform to the current presentation.
    (4) Global operating costs include product development, service engineering and operations, general and administrative, and other corporate expenses that are managed on a global basis and that are not directly attributable to any particular segment. Prior to 2012, marketing and customer advocacy costs were managed on a global basis and included as global operating costs. Prior period amounts have been revised to conform to the current presentation.
    (5) For the three months and year ended December 31, 2012, costs associated with the Korea business and its closure include $83 million of restructuring charges.

     

    Yahoo! Inc.
    GAAP to Non-GAAP Reconciliations
    (in thousands, except per share amounts)
    Three Months Ended
    December 31,
    2011 2012
    GAAP Income from operations $ 242,447 $ 189,990
    (a) Costs associated with the Korea business and its closure 99,485
    (b) Restructuring charges, net (6) 16,329 (6,794 )
    Non-GAAP Income from operations $ 258,776 $ 282,681
    GAAP Net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc. $ 295,572 $ 272,267
    (a) Costs associated with the Korea business and its closure 99,485
    (b) Restructuring charges, net (6) 16,329 (6,794 )
    (c) To adjust the provision for income taxes to exclude the tax impact of items (a) and (b) above for the three months ended December 31, 2011 and 2012 (5,192 ) 4,626
    Non-GAAP Net earnings $ 306,709 $ 369,584
    GAAP Net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc. common stockholders per share – diluted $ 0.24 $ 0.23
    Non-GAAP Net earnings per share – diluted $ 0.25 $ 0.32
    Shares used in per share calculation – diluted 1,241,009 1,168,336
    Year Ended
    December 31,
    2011 2012
    GAAP Income from operations $ 800,341 $ 566,368
    (a) Costs associated with the Korea business and its closure 99,485
    (b) Restructuring charges, net (6) 24,420 152,742
    (c) Deal-related costs related to the sale of Alibaba shares 6,500
    Non-GAAP Income from operations $ 824,761 $ 825,095
    GAAP Net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc. $ 1,048,827 $ 3,945,479
    (a) Costs associated with the Korea business and its closure 99,485
    (b) Restructuring charges, net (6) 24,420 152,742
    (c) Deal-related costs related to the sale of Alibaba shares 6,500
    (d) Gain related to sale of Alibaba shares (4,603,322 )
    (e) Non-cash gain related to the dilution of the Company’s ownership interest in Alibaba Group, which is included in earnings in equity interests (25,083 )
    (f) To adjust the provision for income taxes to exclude the tax impact of items (a) through (d) above for the year ended December 31, 2011 and 2012 (7,764 ) 1,805,940
    Non-GAAP Net earnings $ 1,040,400 $ 1,406,824
    GAAP Net income attributable to Yahoo! Inc. common stockholders per share – diluted $ 0.82 $ 3.28
    Non-GAAP Net earnings per share – diluted $ 0.81 $ 1.17
    Shares used in per share calculation – diluted 1,282,282 1,202,906
    (6) For the three months and year ended December 31, 2012, this amount excludes the restructuring charges related to the Korea business and its closure of $83 million, which is included in item (a) above.

     

    Yahoo! Inc.

  • Shia LaBeouf: Acid Trip Helped Research Role

    Shia LaBeouf has become known, in the past year or so, for taking roles that are far outside his own comfort zone…and perhaps the comfort zone of his own audience, who watched him grow up on the Disney Channel.

    After appearing in a Sigur Ros video in which the term “full frontal” got him major headlines, he went on to star in the highly acclaimed “Lawless” as a young man involved in the moonshine trade of the ’20s. For that role, he says he did some research in the form of swigging some ‘shine, and for his latest role–in Sundance favorite “The Necessary Death Of Charlie Countryman”–he says he dropped acid.

    “There’s a way to do an acid trip like Harold & Kumar, and there’s a way to be on acid,” he said. “What I know of acting, Sean Penn actually strapped up to that (electric) chair in Dead Man Walking. These are the guys that I look up to.”

    LaBeouf says he filmed himself while tripping and sent the footage to co-star Evan Rachel Wood for feedback.

    “I remember trying to conjure this and sending tapes and Evan being like, ‘Yeah, that’s good, but that’s not, but this is, but that ain’t,” he said.

    The young star says Wood helped him immensely while he was tackling the role; all that hard work seems to have paid off, as there is strong buzz around the film at the festival this year.

  • What Does Facebook Graph Search Mean For SEO?

    Facebook has dominated the conversation in the tech world this week (for several reasons), but especially because of its unveiling of Graph Search. We’ve been waiting for years for Facebook to “get into search” and “take on Google,” and we appear to have the company’s first real attempt at doing so.

    Do you think Facebook has a legitimate shot at cutting into Google’s share of the search market? Let us know in the comments.

    It is very clear that Graph Search is not going to instantly come out and reduce Google’s piece of the search pie very significantly. It’s in very early beta and limited preview. Facebook says it is rolling out slowly, and many who have already signed up to be part of the preview are still waiting for a chance to actually use it. The company knows it has a whole lot of work to do on this product. It’s starting off by focusing on four main areas of search: people, photos, places and interests. These are four major things, but there is so much more that Facebook could (and will) do. Facebook posts and open graph actions will be added in the coming months, according to Mark Zuckerberg. Mobile will eventually be added as well. So will Instagram, and probably plenty of other things in time.

    In other words, it’s not so much about what Facebook has unveiled, as what Graph Search could evolve into. Could it evolve into a Google killer? Probably not, but who can say for sure? The reality is that it doesn’t have to be a Google killer to be successful, and a useful tool for Facebook users. More time spent on Facebook (especially time spent using search on Facebook) has the potential to draw away some amount of ad spend from Google to Facebook, which really could hurt Google to some extent.

    Facebook has a legitimate shot at being a real player in search because, for one, it has over a billion users already, and for two, because it can provide answers that Google can’t. There is plenty of room for Facebook Graph Search to flourish with or without Google dominating traditional web search, because Graph Search is not traditional web search. In fact, one of the first things Zuckerberg said when he introduced the product on Tuesday, was that it is “not web search”.

    Facebook does utilize its partnership with Bing to add the web search element, and as Liz Gannes at All Things De writes, Graph Search should only help Google’s case for increased competition in search when it comes to antitrust scrutiny.

    Some have dismissed the offering as “not a big deal”. I’m not so sure I agree with that. Either way, we at least owe it to Facebook to let the product show us what it can do before rushing to snap judgments. Give users a chance to figure out what they can do with it. Give Facebook a chance to move it forward out of beta, and add the stuff it really wants to add.

    Privacy

    Privacy concerns generally come attached to any major Facebook product launch. The controversy the company has drawn in the past with regards to privacy doesn’t help perception. Still, privacy was a major point of discussion by Facebook as it unveiled Graph Search. In fact, they released a video with some privacy tips just as they announced the product.

    The fact of the matter is (at least this is what Facebook is telling us), is that users will only be able to see things on Facebook that they already could. The only thing that changes is that users have a new way to discover these things. Still, that could be enough to make some users feel uneasy, which is why Facebook recommends checking out how you’re already sharing your data. Indeed, if you haven’t perused your privacy settings lately, you might want to take a look and make sure you’re comfortable with them.

    Facebook SEO

    Okay, now let’s get to the business side of things. Graph Search may just present businesses with some great new opportunities to get in front of users on Facebook, a feat that has become increasingly challenging as Facebook has tinkered with the way it displays updates from Pages in the News Feed. With Graph Search comes a whole new area of search engine optimization. Whereas optimizing for Bing might be pretty similar to optimizing for Google, optimizing for Facebook’s Graph Search is bound to be an entirely different beast.

    For one, optimizing for Graph Search is not about optimizing a web page (although it might make your Bing rankings of greater concern).

    Facebook has already shared some optimization tips for businesses. “The search bar first returns the top search suggestions, including people, Pages, apps, places, groups, and suggested searches,” the company explains. “People can search for things like restaurants near them, hotels in places they want to travel to, photos posted by Pages they like, or games that their friends like to play.”

    “These search suggestions take people to a unique results page,” it adds. “The results returned are based on factors that include information that has been shared by your business and the connections of the person searching.”

    Facebook will also make suggestions in the search bar, and will display Bing results (and ads) for web searches. Pages and apps will continue to be able to use sponsored results. These will continue to appear whether or not the user has Graph Search yet.

    Here are the specific tips Facebook offered for “making sure your Page is complete and up-to-date”.

    • The name, category, vanity URL, and information you share in the “About” section all help people find your business and should be shared on Facebook.
    • If you have a location or a local place Page, update your address to make sure you can appear as a result when someone is searching for a specific location.
    • Focus on attracting the right fans to your Page and on giving your fans a reason to interact with your content on an ongoing basis.
    • You can learn more about fan acquisition and Page publishing best practices here.

    You may also want to consider going through Facebook’s “Managing A Page” help section, which covers: getting started, accessing your page, settings/general administration (editing, notifications, managing admins, usernames/page addresses, claiming/merging duplicate pages), customizing how it looks, growing your audience (best practices/reaching more people), private messages, apps, using your page on mobile, policy questions, page insights (analytics), page admin privacy, bugs/known issues, and posting/moderating posts by others (page posts, offers for page admins, translating page posts, moderating what people post on your page, and photos/events/links).

    It’s hard to know this early in the game how businesses will best be able to use Graph Search for increased visibility, but you can rest assured, people will be trying to take advantage. It will be interesting to see just how gameable the system is. Facebook is likely going to have to take on this issue with its own set of “quality guidelines” the way Google does, which will enable it to manually (and algorithmically) penalize Pages that are in violation.

    Facebook does already have a business resource site here.

    Facebook also notes that app developers have a lot to gain from Graph Search. The company says, “Apps are now more discoverable on Facebook with Graph Search. In addition to showing up in search results based on your app’s name, they can show up in search results based on criteria like ‘strategy games my friends play’ or ‘apps my friends who live in San Francisco use.’ To optimize your app for Graph Search, please make sure your app details are up-to-date and that your app is properly categorized.”

    Potential Relevancy Problems

    You know how paid links is a problem for Google optimization? It will be interesting to see how “like buying” fits into the Facebook picture as it pertains to ranking in Graph Search.

    Steve Cheney has an interesting blog post on how businesses may be able to influence the results based on how much of their marketing budgets they put toward fan acquisition.

    “For the past several years big advertisers on FB have actually been directing massive amounts of paid media to acquire fans. They quite literally bought likes,” he writes. Why? Early on FB made the case to brands that they must have fans… together with the ad agencies they convinced the Cokes of the world to spend money to be competitive (hey Pepsi is here too). Then, FB promised, something miraculous would happen. Your friends would see in their news feed you liked Coke!”

    “So… FB convinced big advertisers to spend huge sums on CPA-like ad units whose sole purpose was to acquire fans. Ad agencies dedicated creative, planning and strategy resources to get the Cokes and American Expresses of the world to pay to have users click—almost 100% of the time because the user was promised some sweepstake or contest,” he continues. “Recall back to all the past campaigns you’ve ignored where you could ‘like to enter’ or ‘like to qualify’. They are literally everywhere and are always tied to fan acquisition.”

    He goes on to note that over the past several years, American Express, for example, has spent about half of its ad spend on buying likes, which he says equates to tens of millions of dollars, and that “across the board, big advertisers were told to spend 50% of their ad buy solely on fan acquisition.”

    Of course outside of these massive marketing budgets, pages give users deals for “liking” them on Facebook all the time. These are not necessarily genuine liking of a business, and this could dilute the relevancy of search results for users actually looking for some useful information to help them make decisions.

    Another potential relevancy problem is that people change their minds. Just because you liked something two years ago (or longer) does not mean it represents your current opinion. People get older and grow up. They have bad experiences with businesses that they used to like. They’re not always going to go back and unlike things. It’s simply not going to occur to everyone. For that matter, Facebook has already buried so many updates from pages in the news feed, users are no doubt forgetting that they ever even liked some pages to begin with, since they never see updates from them.

    Then there’s the fact that a lot of Facebook users aren’t taking the time to “like” everything they actually like.

    “Consider me,” writes Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Land. “Not only have I not liked my electrician, my plumber, my dentist, my doctor or my tax person on Facebook, but I don’t even know if they have Facebook pages. I have nothing to offer to my Facebook friends in this regard. Similarly, despite the huge number of books I read through my Kindle, I never go to like those books on Facebook, so books I love are more or less invisible on Facebook.”

    Social Signals

    Despite all of this, there’s no question that Facebook has the strongest social signals of any service on the web. It has the volume, and has the close, personal connections. It has your family and the people you have known all your life. it has your co-workers, your old friends from all levels of school, and it has the people in your town. It also has the people on the other side of the world. If social signals are ever to be important to the relevance of search results on a mass scale, wouldn’t it have to be Facebook’s?

    We had a conversation with blekko CEO Rich Skrenta about Graph Search and social signals. He tells us social signals are “critical” for search relevance.

    “PageRank originally measured the web’s primary social signal — links,” he says. “Facebook has even better social data which would be great for ranking recommendations. And they could be personalized to you, based on your friends.”

    “Facebook Graph Search addresses a completely new class of searches that you can’t do today on Google,” he says.

    “Another difference is the layers of searching or refinement that Facebook Search offers compared to Google,” writes Sullivan. “For example, a Google search can show you restaurants in San Francisco, a pretty much single dimensional view.

    “A Facebook search can show you restaurants in San Francisco liked by your friends,” he adds. “Or further, those liked by your friends who actually live in San Francisco, as opposed to those who live elsewhere. Or those liked by your single friends, your straight friends, your gay friends, your friends who work for a particular company.”

    Wrapping Up

    Clearly Facebook has a lot of challenges ahead of itself if it wishes to be a serious player in search, and while Graph Search could pose some threat to Google, not just a search destination, but as a more complete web experience, it has a long way to go. Even still, the amount of data that Facebook has at is disposal, along with the engineering talent behind the offering, led by former Googlers, it’s hard to imagine this offering won’t be at leas an important too for Facebook itself, if not a bigger deal for the web itself.

    Do you think Graph Search is a big deal? A threat to Google? A useful Facebook tool? An important tool for businesses? Let us know in the comments.

  • When Bing Gets Paid For Shopping Results, It’s A “Happy Accident”

    Last month, Bing launched an attack campaign against Google Shopping, called “Don’t Get Scroogled“. Microsoft’s search engine has consistently been calling out Google’s recent transition form an anyone-can-get-in-for-free approach to a paid inclusion approach for Shopping results, as well as how Google has chosen to disclose this to consumers.

    Do you prefer Bing’s business practices to Google’s when it comes to shopping results? Let us know in the comments.

    We had a chance to have a conversation about this with Stefan Weitz, Senior Director of Search at Microsoft, who tells us the Scroogled campaign has been working.

    “Millions of people have visited scroogled.com and viewed the videos that outline how Google is no longer offering honest shopping search,” Weitz tells WebProNews. “Tens of millions of people have seen our television ads, print ads and online efforts. How is it all working? I can tell you that the campaign is accomplishing what we want – helping people more informed about what they are seeing in search and how what Google once called a ‘particularly insidious’ practice is now status quo for their shopping experience.”

    Here are the Scroogled videos:

    “I can also tell you the number of inbound requests for interviews and more information has exploded as people understand the issue more completely,” says Weitz. “Last, we now even have some merchants who have contacted us to talk about how the new Google Product Listing Ads experience has negatively affected their businesses.”

    But we’ve heard Bing’s side of the story numerous times now, from the campaign itself, and from other articles about it. Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Land wrote a piece, concluding that Bing is “guilty of the same problems” it calls out Google for.

    We asked Weitz what he’d like readers to know that they haven’t heard before. “I’d tell readers to look at this third party study that outlines what is happening to product selection on Google as a result of their shift to paid ranking,” he says.

    Actually, we did link to that before, but feel free to check it out again.

    “I’d also tell them to look to Google for more honest responses about what they are really doing,” Weitz adds. “Their only response to the campaign was fraught with errors and misstatements whether, intentional or not, misleading readers.”

    “Finally, I’d tell people to look beyond the core issue here and think about the bigger picture,” he says. “They’ve already abandoned one of their core principles that made them a trusted consumer brand and are now trading on that goodwill while surreptitiously changing the rules of their game. What’s next as their margins continue to get squeezed as more usage shifts to lower monetization mobile queries?”

    We asked Weitz to explain why he believes Sullivan’s article is wrong about Bing. He says he’s talked to Sullivan several times about this.

    “While he makes some good points about ensuring all sites do a great job with disclosure, he and I simply disagree on the core issue,” Weitz tells us. “The problem with Google’s Shopping results is that they look like search. They act like search. But everything one sees in the ‘search’ experience is bought and paid for.”

    “In stark contrast, we simply don’t take money in exchange for ranking. Period,” he says. “The vast majority of our product listings come either from free feeds given to us by merchants and our crawler. Yes, it’s harder. Yes, it costs us more money to make sure we offer a quality shopping experience. But at least it’s still real search.”

    “One of Danny’s issues is that we accept feeds from third party aggregators like Shopping.com and PriceGrabber,” Weitz continues. “A merchant may pay to have their products listed in one of those third party sites. We, in turn, get feeds from those sites to make sure we have a complete product offering catalog. And if a customer happens to buy a product from a merchant who has paid one of the third party shopping sites to be listed, we do get a portion of that click revenue. But – and this is important – we DO NOT take into account the fact a merchant paid a third party when we rank our product offers. If we manage to get paid, it’s a happy accident. Unlike Google, it isn’t our business model.”

    On the Bing Shopping “Getting Started” page, which Sullivan displayed in his article, Bing lists one of the benefits of listing through shopping.com as:

    “Higher visibility: Paid offers will be highlighted throughout Bing Shopping, including search result and product pages.”

    Here’s that part highlighted on the page:

    Bing Shopping - Getting Started

    It kind of sounds like if you want higher visibility, you can pay to have offers highlighted throughout Bing Shopping, including search results (and product pages).

    We asked Weitz, “Does this not mean that you get higher visibility in shopping results when you pay?”

    “No,” he says. “It means you MIGHT be listed as our ‘Sponsored Offer’ above our organic product listings or on the right rail of ads. All of which are clearly marked as ads.”

    Perhaps they might want to take another look at the wording. It’s also worth noting that on that page, they’re recommending that method of getting listed (“We recommend this method for the following benefits”). It’s also the first one listed (ahead of submitting a feed to Bing directly).

    Back in the summer, Sullivan wrote a letter to the FTC, calling for an industry-wide transparency review regarding how search engines display paid listings. At the time, we asked Google if they would support such a review. Google said, “Consumers benefit from clear labeling in search results, and we have always clearly disclosed which links are paid advertisements. That said, not all search engines clearly disclose paid results, so we would support a fresh look by the FTC at search labeling and transparency practices.”

    We asked Microsoft/Bing at the time as well. They said, “No comment.” We asked Weitz about this.

    He now says, “Microsoft is mindful of and complies with all applicable laws. We are willing to work with the FTC on relevant matters, including search engine labeling and transparency, and respect the FTC’s role on the issue.”

    Bing is not the only one who doesn’t like Google’s transition to paid inclusion for Google Shopping. There have indeed been plenty of users and businesses complaining about it. We’ve seen it in our own article comments.

    Interestingly, even former Googler Vanessa Fox, who is credited with creating Google’s Webmaster Central, has expressed concern about Google’s shift. In a recent interview, she told WebProNews, “I’m not super happy about the shift to paid placement in product search. I can see the rationale of why they did it, but doesn’t reflect the stated mission all that well.”

    While we had Weitz, he thought we’d see what he had to say about a couple of other recent developments. For one, as you may know, Google has altered its SafeSearch feature in the U.S. to a great deal of outcry. We’ve seen some people say they would start using Bing because of it.

    “I’d say this is what happens when a single player commands a huge share of a market – they can do things consumers don’t want and they can do it with relative impunity,” Weitz says.

    NORAD, which has been tracking Santa at Christmas time with Google for years, made the jump to Microsoft this year (though Google is still tracking Santa on its own).

    Weitz says, “I have watched NORAD tracks Santa for years with my daughter who is now 8 and I can’t tell you the number of times she asked me why Santa was using Google as he flew over the world. I’m glad this year I won’t have to tell her it’s because Santa gets a kickback from Google Shopping.”

    Of course, Google didn’t migrate to the paid inclusion model until this year, so there’s no reason he would have had to tell her that in the past, but point taken.

    Does Bing have a legitimate point with its attack on Google Shopping? Let us know what you think.

  • Facebook Tests Paid Messages That Are Guaranteed to Reach Users’ Inboxes

    Facebook has been doing a lot as of late to improve their Messages product and to encourage more people to use it. Back in August, Facebook totally redesigned the look of Messages on desktop, giving it a new side-by-side view that put all of your conversations on the same page. They also made improvements to their Messenger for Android app that allowed users to sign up with just a name and a number – no Facebook account required.

    Both of these improvements were warmly received. Other “improvements,” such as that creepy “message seen” feature, were considerably less-appreciated. Either way, Facebook is trying, you have to give them that.

    I’m not sure this latest test is going to help their cause.

    Facebook is testing (note, testing) a product that will give users the ability to pay to ensure messages sent to other users outside their network reach that users’ inbox, and not wind up in that “other” folder (Facebook’s version of a spam folder). That means you can pay a small fee ($1) to bypass Facebook’s messages sorting algorithms and place your message in the inbox of someone you don’t know.

    “Several commentators and researchers have noted that imposing a financial cost on the sender may be the most effective way to discourage unwanted messages and facilitate delivery of messages that are relevant and useful,” says Facebook.

    It could also be seen as Facebook letting people pay to spam you.

    But Facebook said it could come in handy if you wanted to reach out to a potential employer, let’s say, who wasn’t your friend and who wasn’t even in your network of friends. That’s a good point, but it’s unclear just how willing a users would be to pay to make sure someone simply sees their message in their inbox. I guess it would be the same population that would pay to promote their own post.

    Of couse, this is just a test. Facebook does tons of tests all the time, and most of them never see primetime. But then again, they usually don’t announce these tests in blog posts.

    The pay-to-message test isn’t the only announcement coming out of Facebook today. They’ve also added new filtering options to Messages. First, “Basic Filtering,” which is pretty much the same as the previous “friends of friends” setting. Most of the message you’ll see will come from your friends and people you may know.

    Second, “Strict Filtering” simply allows for messages from friends to hit your inbox.

    Facebook does say that some new types of messages may appear in your inbox that wouldn’t before today:

    With filters, the following types of messages may reach your Inbox that before would not:

    Someone using Messenger for Android, who is not on Facebook but has your contact info in their phone, wanted to send you a message; A friend of a friend wanted to include you in a message about a party along with some of your mutual friends; A friend wanted to send a message to your @facebook.com address.

    But it’s these paid messages that I’m sure most users will be talking about. Facebook says that they will “continue to iterate and evolve Facebook Messages over the coming months.”

  • Bing Gets Webmaster Guidelines, Here’s What They Say About Paid Links

    Bing announced that, like Google, it now has its own set of Webmaster Guidelines.

    “As we update these guidelines over time, we’ll post notices here at the blog to let folks know to review the changes,” says Bing’s Duane Forrester. “Changes should be infrequent as these current Webmaster Guidelines cover most major topics. They are not exhaustive and you should not expect to find deep, technical answers in them. They are intended to help most business owners understand the broad strokes of search marketing.”

    The guidelines can be found in Bing’s Webmaster Help center under Content Guidelines. There are sections on: 404-Pages Best Practices, Link Building, Marking Up Your Site with Structured Data, Markup: People and Markup: Products and Offers.

    Pay attention to these, and maybe you can avoid getting hit by some future Bing version of the Penguin update (though if you follow Google’s, which have been in place for years (though they have been updated), you’ll most likely be safe in Bing too. Still, something about Bing’s guidelines seem less threatening.

    For example, here’s the section on link buying from Bing’s:

    You may choose to buy a link from a trusted website. This is your choice, but you should know that as Bing begins to see a pattern of links from one website turning off each month, then new ones showing up for a month or so from the same domain to new websites, we begin to understand the website is selling links. Thus, any links leaving that website will be suspect. Search engines are very good at seeing patterns so think carefully before purchasing a link in search of elevated rankings.

    That said, buying a link on a busy website can bring you direct traffic, so it does remain a valid marketing tactic. Just be careful how often you employ this tactic lest Bing form the impression you’re buying links to try to influence your organic rankings.

    Bing also has a series of Webmaster webinars coming up. Check out the blog post for the schedule.

  • The Latest On Google’s Battle With Publishers Who Want To Be Paid For Links

    A week ago, we wrote about the battles Google is facing with publishers, specifically in France and Brazil. In France, lawmakers have poposed a law which would require search engines like Google to pay publishers to license content just so they can link to it in Google News search results Google threatened to stop linking to publishers. In Brazil, the majority of newspaper publishers simply pulled out of Google News.

    A new report from Quartz says that Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt is traveling to Paris next week “to discuss the issue”. The publication spoke with France’s minister of technology Fleur Pellerin:

    “We don’t want to appear as a country that is anti-Google,” Pellerin told me in Boston today. “Obviously Google is a wonderful tool and Google is a major actor of the digital ecosystem.”

    “What I would suggest—and what I’m going to suggest to Google and to the press–is to start negotiating, to start discussions for maybe three months, and try to find an agreement on a negotiated basis,” Pellerin continued. “And if they don’t, well we’ll see.”

    Meanwhile, in Brazil, the publishers who have pulled out of Google News seem to be getting by just fine without it. The Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas, which originally reported on the issue, is now reporting that these publishers have only seen a decrease in web traffic of 5%. Isabela Fraga and Natalia Mazotte report:

    “The (newspapers) themselves believed that the 5-percent loss was a price worth paying to defend our authors’ rights and our brands,” said Ricardo Pedreira, ANJ’s executive director in a phone interview with the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas.

    “The fact is, Google News is absolutely irrelevant in Brazil,” said Carlos Müller, ANJ’s communications advisor. “If you go into Google News now and search for (Brazil’s) President Dilma, you’re going to see that none of the websites of the main newspapers in the country are there.”

    “It’s important to point out,” he added, “that the portals of some news companies are still (in Google News).”

    Irrelevant. Ouch.

    It will be interesting to see if this influences publishers in other parts of the world, and if so, how much that really hurts Google, which always has thousands more sources and an entire blogosphere at its disposal, not to mention YouTube and Google+.

  • SMX Advanced: The Mad Scientists Of Paid Search [Takeaways In Tweets]

    Following the “Periodic Table of SEO” session at SMX Advanced today, was the Mad Scientists of Paid Search session.

    SMX’s description of the session says, “Our mad scientists emerge from their PPC labs, where they’ve been assembling keywords words, bidding strategies and other assorted parts into monster PPC campaigns. Attend this session to see how they’ve successfully enhanced paid search performance with rigorous testing and trial and error. Their creations are abnormally effective!”

    The speakers list was as follows:

    Moderator: Matt Van Wagner, President, Find Me Faster (@mvanwagner)
    Q&A Moderator: Joseph Kerschbaum, Vice President of Client Services, Clix Marketing (@joekerschbaum)
    Speakers:
    Michael Behrens, SVP eMarketing, WebMetro (@MichaelBehrens)
    Benny Blum, Director, Strategy & Analytics, eSearchVision (@bennyblum)
    Ryan Hutchings, Director, Online Marketing, VacationRoost
    Matthew Mierzejewski, Vice President of PPC, RKG

    As usual, attendees tweeted their own takeaways and highlights from the panel. Here’s the best of what was said:

    @webmetro google has multiple options to map KWDS #sem #smx #11b
    2 hours ago via Mobile Web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Tip: Use longer keyword (match length) ** Adgroup + Use keyword with highest ad-rank (Quality x Bid) #SMX #11b
    2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    @webmetro is now showing multiple mappings how queries are being mapped to different keywords #11b
    2 hours ago via Mobile Web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Queries triggering more than one kw results in chaotic account behavior, data integrity, and accuracy of modeling & bidding #smx #11B
    2 hours ago via Twitter for Mac · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    @webmeto mapping problems occur at both campaign and ad group levels #11b
    2 hours ago via Mobile Web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    On average multi-mapping happens 10% across accounts #smx #11B
    2 hours ago via Twitter for Mac · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Match Type length Seems to be the Most over ridden rule #smx #11B
    2 hours ago via Twitter for iPad · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Force matching through negative keywords & choose match types carefully #smx #11b
    2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    1 query can trigger multiple keywords across adgroups & campaigns, making account control difficult! #smx #11b
    2 hours ago via Twitter for iPad · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    #smx #11b if you have multiple ads per ad group and rotate evenly, multiple matching keywords is expected behavior
    2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Take back control by force matching through negative keywords #smx #11B
    2 hours ago via Twitter for Mac · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    @dan_patterson I’m digging the literal rubbing of shoulders of fellow search marketers #smx #11b
    2 hours ago via HootSuite · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    You know your business better than Google does (enough said) 🙂 #SMX #11b
    2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Cross serving on a query is a frequent issue. #smx #11B
    2 hours ago via Twitter for Mac · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Use the Google Ad Preview Tool to identify which adgroup/campaign your keywords are matched too. **it’s not always accurate though #SMX #11b
    2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Solution for wrong matching: insert thousands of negatives 🙁 #11B #smx
    2 hours ago via Twitter for iPad · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Have a VERY large negative keyword list to force #Google to respect your ad groups and campaigns. #SMX #11B
    2 hours ago via Tweetbot for iOS · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    #AdWords will “interpret on your behalf” to show what they believe the most relevant keyword regardless of your account structure #smx #11B
    2 hours ago via Twitter for Mac · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    I’m appreciating the sarcasm of speaker #2 #smx #11b
    2 hours ago via Twitter for iPad · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    It’s not a bug, it’s a feature (said Google) 🙂 #SMX #11b
    2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Just because your ad is showing doesn’t mean it’s showing for what you want! -E #SMX #11B
    2 hours ago via HootSuite · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    In most cases there is weak correlation between Quality Score and Conversion Rate #SMX #11b
    2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Matthew Mierzejewski from RKG. #SMX #11B bottom ads, bottom ads higher CRT, no difference in CVR. well, at least it brings more volume?
    2 hours ago via Twitter for iPad · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Root of Google’s CPC decline (it’s not Mobile) it’s Brand Queries & PLA’s #SMX #11B
    2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    CPC 11% down, because mobile traffic has double (at lower CPC) on last qt. #SMX #11B
    2 hours ago via Twitter for iPad · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Avoid Adwords Adrank trumping your match types by granular structures with EXTENSIVE negatives #smx #11b
    2 hours ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    RKG’s says they have seen a 51% increae in Brand query clicks and an 85% decline in CPC #smx #11b
    2 hours ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Mobile: Lower engagement, less likely to convert #SMX #11b
    2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Tablet: High PPV for impulse and DR / Ecom, High bounce rate for service / software #SMX #11b
    2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Purchase intent and engagement varies across devices. @bennyblum #smx #11b Bid strategy should reflect this!
    2 hours ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    I’ll be interested to hear if any Google reps respond officially to some of what was said today #smx #11b
    2 hours ago via Silver Bird · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Google rolled out new matching behavior because the system was already doing it..? Interesting thought from the scientists #smx #11B
    2 hours ago via Twitter for Android · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Question: Best practice. To group Broad Match keywords with Exact Match – or not? Should we isolate kw’s based on search demand? #smx #11b
    2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    @rpboots I’m sure they will, but I wouldn’t expect “helpful” answers.They are all great politicians. #smx #11b
    2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Google incorrectly matches 10% of your queries due to not following their own processes #SMX #11b
    2 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Microsoft wrote a blog post about the session on its adCenter blog, including a list of tips for “taking back control”:

    • Use negative keywords
    • Force matching through negatives
    • Conducive account structure
    • Tightly themed ad groups
    • Maximize ad group match length rule
    • Easier negative implementation
    • Choose match types carefully
    • Phrase OR Broad (almost duplicate) ?
    • Broad OR Broad Match Modified ?
    • Remove duplicates/ambiguous
    • Maintain campaign budgets

    These were from Michael Behrens’ presentation. Check out their post for a more complete recap.

    Image: Aqua Teen Hunger Force (via YouTube)

  • Google Shopping (“Paid Inclusion” Results) To Replace Product Search

    Google is changing Google Product Search to Google Shopping, and building it on product listing ads.

    “When searching for great local restaurants, people want places to eat right there on the results page, not another click or two away. It’s the same with hotels, flight options, directions and shopping,” says Sameer Samat, Vice President of Product Management, Google Shopping. “Organizing these types of data can be very different from indexing the Web, because the information is often not publicly available. It requires deep partnerships with different industries—from financial services and travel to merchants who sell physical goods.”

    This sounds very much like those paid inclusion results Danny Sullivan reported on this week, which we talked about here. Sullivan talked about Google “sponsored” results, which are being found in searches for hotels, flights and financial services – all of which are mentioned in Google’s announcement today. He quoted Google’s Amit Singhal as saying:

    “Fundamentally, time and time again, we started noticing that a class of queries could not be answered based upon just crawled data…We realized that we will have to either license data or go out and establish relationships with data providers…To be super safe, where we have a deal between Google and another party, we didn’t want to call those fully organic results, because they are based on a deal…After much debate, we said “OK, let’s be extra cautious. Let’s call it ‘sponsored’ so that we tell our users that there’s a special relationship that Google has established with someone.”

    In today’s announcement, Samat says, “We believe that having a commercial relationship with merchants will encourage them to keep their product information fresh and up to date. Higher quality data—whether it’s accurate prices, the latest offers or product availability—should mean better shopping results for users, which in turn should create higher quality traffic for merchants.”

    Google talks about how to create a new product listing ad here:

    The transition from Google Product Search to Google Shopping will be complete in the fall, Google says. Google is giving Merchants who create product listing ads by August 15, a 10% monthly credit of their total Product Listing Ad spend through the end of the year. Current Product Search merchants can get $100 AdWords credit toward the ads if they fill out a form before that date.

    Google says ranking in Google Shopping will be based on “a combination of relevance and bid price,” the same as Product Listing Ads today, and those who want to stand out can participate in Google’s Trusted Stores program. The program saw a limited launch last fall:

    Merchants will also be able to standout, using special offers, Google says.

    In Google.com results, the Shopping results will appear as “sponsored,” as discussed by Singhal. Google shows the following example for “telescopes”:

    Telescopes on Google

    It sure seems like there are a lot of ads “above the fold”. I thought Google didn’t care for that much.

    “These new formats are clearly labeled ‘sponsored,’ and take space currently occupied by AdWords,” says Samat.

    But it looks like there will be plenty fo AdWords ads on the page too.

    Google is, however, also putting the “sponsored” results in the area where other queries will return Knowledge Graph results:

    Telescope sponsored result

    These types of search results have been described by Google recently as a “third kind of thing” between organic results and ads. Sullivan has made a point to referr to them as “paid inclusion” results, and to point out that this kind of thing was considered “evil” by Google back in the IPO days.

    Things change (and Google doesn’t call it paid inclusion).

  • Google Obviously Powers Ask.com’s Paid And Organic Search Results

    Not that this will necessarily come as a surprise to you, but it seems pretty obvious that Google is powering Ask’s organic search results. Ask has an open partnership with Google for its sponsored search results, but will not come right out and say who is powering its regular results.

    I’m not sure that there was much doubt it was Google anyway, but after looking at Google’s results for “viagra” in light of its Penguin update, and comparing them to the results on other search engines, Ask’s SERP for the query was nearly identical, down to the specific flaws we pointed out about Google’s version. Google has corrected some of these flaws, and those same ones appear to have been corrected on Ask’s version as well.

    A spokesperson for Ask told us, “A third-party partner powers core web search on Ask.com, but that information is not public for contractual reasons.”

    “Ask’s search technology is focused on surfacing answers to questions rather than links, and it’s powered by a combination of technologies,” she said. “A third party search engine supplies the raw search feeds and we build our own algorithms on top of that, designed specifically to locate and extract answers to questions.”

    Here’s what Ask says on its Editorial Guidelines page about its automated search results:

    Ask.com delivers its primary search results using it’s proprietary search technology. These search results appear under the heading “Web Results”. Ask.com search technology uses sophisticated algorithms and Subject-Specific PopularitySM data to generate the most relevant and authoritative results on the Web.

    Here’s what it says about its sponsored links:

    Results appearing under the heading “Sponsored Web Results” or “Sponsored Web Result” are provided by Google, a third party provider of pay for performance search listings. Google generates highly relevant sponsored results by allowing advertisers to bid for placement in this area based on relevant keywords. These results, which are powered by Google’s advanced algorithms, are then distributed across the Internet to some of the world’s most popular and well-known Web sites, including Ask.

    Here’s a screen cap of the “viagra” results before they were fixed:

    null

    You can just compare the results to the ones I talked about in this article and see the obvious similarities (which were not all duplicated on the other search engines).

    By the way, if you ask Ask.com, “Does Google power Ask.com’s search results?” the top two results are articles that suggest that Google may power Ask.com’s search results. Of course, they also happen to be the same results Google gives you when you ask the same question in a Google query.

    If you’re counting Bing and Yahoo together in those search market reports, you might as well be counting Google and Ask together as well. And AOL, of course.

  • Should Bing Make Paid Search Ads Blend Into Organic Results?

    Emily Kirk, a Rimm-Kaufman Group analyst spotted a feature Microsoft is testing with Bing: paid results in the middle of organic results. Yep.

    Ordinarily on Bing, paid ads appear above and below organic results, and they’re easily identifiable in a blue box:

    Bing Search Ads

    The test feature eliminates the blue box and sticks them in the middle of the results, making them far less distinguishable as ads, though there is still a an “ads” label off to the right.

    Bing Ad Test

    Image credit: RKGz

    Barry Schwartz at Search Engine Land obtained the following statement from Microsoft, “We’re constantly testing and experimenting on Bing, and with that, we carefully measure user engagement and reaction to these changes. We have nothing further to share at this time.”

    I’d be very surprised if this moved from testing to become an actual feature, because there would be a fair amount of negative publicity I think. It’s become pretty well established throughout the industry that paid search results should be very clear to the user. That said, perhaps Microsoft considers the small “ad” label to be sufficient.

  • Is Your Paid Search Campaign Cannibalizing Your Organic Clicks?

    Is Your Paid Search Campaign Cannibalizing Your Organic Clicks?

    In case you’re wondering if your paid campaigns are cannibalizing clicks from your organic search results, the answer is: not so much. That is If you take Google’s word for it anyway.

    Google says its statisticians have run over 400 studies on accounts with paused paid search campaigns to gain some insight into how paid search affects organic clicks for websites.

    “In what we call ‘Search Ads Pause Studies’, our group of researchers observed organic click volume in the absence of search ads,” Google’s Quantitative Management team said in a post on the Google Research Blog. “Then they built a statistical model to predict the click volume for given levels of ad spend using spend and organic impression volume as predictors. These models generated estimates for the incremental clicks attributable to search ads (IAC), or in other words, the percentage of paid clicks that are not made up for by organic clicks when search ads are paused.”

    “The results were surprising,” the team added. “On average, the incremental ad clicks percentage across verticals is 89%. This means that a full 89% of the traffic generated by search ads is not replaced by organic clicks when ads are paused. This number was consistently high across verticals.”

    Hmm. Sounds like you should really be spending money paying for Google ads…at least according to Google.

    David X. Chan, Yuan Yuan, Jim Koehler, and Deepak Kumar explain in the report:

    In order to determine the incremental clicks related to search advertising, we quantify the impact pausing search ad spend has on total clicks. Indirect navigation to the advertiser site is not considered. Each study produces an estimate of the incremental clicks attributed to search advertising for an advertiser. To make comparison across multiple studies easier, we express the incremental clicks as a percentage of the change in paid clicks. This metric is labeled \Incremental Ad Clicks”, or \IAC” for short.

    IAC represents the percentage of paid clicks that are not made up for by organic clicks when ads are paused. Conversely, when the campaign is restarted, the IAC represents the fraction of paid clicks that are incremental. Since we do not assume a positive interaction between paid and organic search in our analysis, the IAC estimate is bounded at 100%.

    The team does acknowledge that it has not conducted enough studies to determine the impact of seasonality on the results.

    The full report can be read here (pdf).

  • Adobe to Help Search Marketers Keep Paid Campaigns From Cannibalizing Organic SEO

    Back in the fall of 2009, Adobe announced it was acquiring web analytics software provider Omniture. As a result of that acquisition, Adobe runs SearchCenter+, a paid search campaign management tool. 

    Adobe announced today that SearchCenter+ now allows users to integrate data from both paid search campaigns and organic SEO. 

    "Our customers derive significant value from our ability to serve as the hub to gather, analyze and take action on their valuable marketing data,” said John Mellor, VP, strategy and business development at Adobe’s  Omniture Business Unit. "Customers use SearchCenter+ to collectively manage more than $1 billion of the global paid search spend. Adobe now helps search marketers ensure that their paid search initiatives do not compete with or cannibalize the search volume they’re already receiving from natural search.”

    Adobe SearchCenterUsers can measure paid and organic search rankings, onsite engagement, or conversions in one report, use performance of natural search to adjust their paid search bids, gain insight to help in making keyword bidding decisions, etc. 

    The new version of SearchCenter+ is currently in beta, and is expected to become generally available in the second quarter.

    The Omniture acquisition has been big in terms of making Adobe a bigger deal for search marketers. Late last year, the company also introduced a tool for site search, aimed at helping marketers anticipate visitor search intent and promote relevant products and content. 

  • U.S. Paid Search Rebounded In 2010

    U.S. Paid Search Rebounded In 2010

    U.S. paid search made solid gains in 2010 with 18.5 percent growth year-over-year, according to a new report from SearchIgnite.

    The fourth quarter (Q4) showed strong growth, increasing 35.5 percent YoY with December leading the quarter at 44.8 percent YoY growth. The Q4 holiday season indicated improved consumer sentiment, with the average order value (AOV) up 31.3 percent YoY compared to a 13 percent decrease in 2009.

     

    Search-Spend-2010

     

    “2010 proved to be a great year for search advertising as the search market recovered from the downturn,” said Roger Barnette, CEO of SearchIgnite.

    “Even more promising is the revival of consumer spend throughout the year and the strength of Average Order Values in Q4. We expect 2011 to be a strong year for search and online advertising overall.”

    Other findings in the report include:

    *Retail saw significant increases in search spend in Q4 (up 36.6% YoY)

    *All other underlying metrics in Q4 show positive results with 20.6% YoY increase in clicks, 2.3% YoY increase in impressions and 17.9% YoY increase in click-through rates.

    *Google’s share of advertising spend in Q4 increased to 82.6%, up from 80.2% in Q3. Yahoo/Bing accounted for 17.4% of Q4 spend.

     

  • Retailers Increasing Paid Search Ads Ahead Of Black Friday

    U.S. paid search spend from retailers has increased nearly 37 percent ahead of Black Friday and Cyber Monday, compared to last year, according to a new report from SearchIgnite.

    The increase in retailers’ online PPC spend appears to be paying off as the economy bounces back from the recession; the rate at which consumers converted after clicking on a paid search advertisement was up 28.7% and their Average Order Values from online shopping were up 20.7% YoY.

    "The increase on search spend among retailers is promising for the state of the search market overall," said Roger Barnette, CEO of SearchIgnite.

    Search-Advertising

    "More promising, however, is consumers’ increased Average Order Values and conversion rates. We expect this to be a very strong holiday season for e-commerce as the economy bounces back and consumers increasingly go online to do their shopping."

    Other highlights from the report include:

    *Spend growth slows on the combined Yahoo/Bing: Retailers’ search advertising spend on the combined Yahoo/Bing grew only 2.2% YoY, down from mid-Q4 2009 when both engines showed more significant increases (47% Bing, 8% Yahoo YoY).

    *CPCs are rising for retailers: CPCs are rising. Despite widespread speculation that CPCs would increase specifically on Yahoo/Bing following their integration, CPCs rose most notably on Google (13% YoY), compared with only 4% rise on Yahoo/Bing. 

     

  • Bing Sees Big Growth In Paid Search

    Bing Sees Big Growth In Paid Search

    The U.S. paid search market saw spending increase 5.8 percent year-over-year in the third quarter, with July growing 4.9 percent, August 5.8 percent and September 6.7 percent, according to a new report from SearchIgnite.

     Bing saw the most spend growth, up 21 percent year-over-year, with market share gains of 6.4 percent in Q3 (up from 6.2% in Q2).  Yahoo saw a 10 percent decline in search ad spend over Q3, with market share falling to 13.4 percent from 15.4 percent in Q2. The report says the drop, along with gain in Bing, is partially due to testing occurring on the combined Yahoo/Bing search alliance.

    SearrchIgnite-Q3.jpg

    Google continued to lead with 80.2 percent of U.S. search spend, up nearly 2 percentage points from Q2, and representing 7.9 percent year-over-year growth. This is the largest market share by Google since SearchIgnite began tracking search engine market share data in Q1 2007. The jump in size marks the largest quarter-over-quarter increase for Google since Q1 2009.

    “Google continued to increase its dominance in the paid search market in the third quarter,” said Roger Barnette, CEO of SearchIgnite.

    “However, the Bing/Yahoo! alliance is performing well for advertisers thus far, and marketers want to see a viable competitor to Google in the market. We feel that there is a real opportunity for Bing to capture significant market share in the near term if these early results continue to play out in the fourth quarter.”