HotPot, yes, it sounds like a tasty dish I had for lunch one cold December day. Alas it is actually a new social platform introduced by Google making your opinions, and those of your friends the basis for local search results.

Imagine my surprise when while watching hulu, not at work of course, The ubiquitous  ad that interrupts my television enjoyment is for Google HotPot. Now, it’s been years since I can remember actually seeing a Google ad not on Adowrds, so this must be good. So how does it work? Well, first you’ll need a Google Places account. Then the fun can begin.

Google puts it like this: “Every time you rate a place on Google, we get a better understanding of your likes and dislikes…  Once we can discern your tastes, you’ll start to see recommendations in your search results of places chosen specially for you, with explanations of why you might like them.” That’s not all. Go ahead and add your friends to your Google places account.” When you add them as friends in Google Places, you’ll see their recommendations when you search for places on Google.”

What will this mean for your Local search effort? It means that now more than ever reviews, good reviews, are tantamount to having a successful local search model.  It also means ORM (online reputation management) is even more important and even one bad review can completely derail your relevancy for local search.

More information on Hot Pot can be found HERE.

Make breakfast easier with instant pancakes! Clean your bathtub quicker with instant sanitizer! Get over that headache with instant relief! And now, decrease your time searching with instant Google!

In a society that increasingly glorifies and capitalizes on the public’s laziness and torpor, ‘instant’ has become a necessary descriptor for the success of countless goods and services. When computers became prolific, all were happy to forego the burdens of the pen in favor of the seamless keyboard. But it is not enough; it MUST be faster! Unfortunately the insipid human tentacles can only move so fast, but mother Google always knew it would come to this. So for the sake of our penchant for inertia, Google now provides instant results so that searchers can complete the hunt much more rapidly. In essence, type less to get more. Never before have people been so brazenly rewarded for lack of thoroughness. I wonder if this could have larger implications for the future of nonverbal communication and the ‘written’ word, as language might start to evolve in concomitance with our dire need for efficiency. That is probably an issue outside of my realm of expertise, but I suppose I can comment on the implications for SEM.

Google instant caused a lot of chatter when first announced, and since its implementation, it has looked like much ado about nothing. So it appears that search marketers can breathe easy, at least until the next Google Blog update pops up in their inbox. But as this insightful article points out, there are less conspicuous opportunities that Google Instant has created, such as the potential for purchasing incomplete keywords. Since this technology more or less encourages curtailed search terms, there might be promise in buying your desired keyword’s leading syllables. These unfinished terms cost next to nothing and have little competition, for now at least. For example, when the incomplete term ‘elec’ is Google Instantfied, ads are generated for ‘election results.’ But Google, I was trying to find an electrician! You know nothing about me! Alas, Gary the electrician can get the upper hand on his competitors by buying this incomplete term and revealing himself sooner; and Google and I can continue our dysfunctional relationship for the time being.

Despite garnering so much attention and worry, Google Instant was probably just a geeky gimmick to create a little buzz and keep the monolith at the top of the search world. As search engine marketers, we must be malleable and adapt to Google’s caprices. Furthermore, we must use our internet savvy to find the subtleties that affect our practice. Google Instant definitely feeds on laziness, but I believe that laziness is just a wrongfully derogatory word for efficiency.

– Kenneth Hurta

News surfaced today that Goldman Sachs and a previously unnamed investor (Digital Sky Technologies – also an investor in Groupon) invested $500 million in Facebook.  This puts the worth of Facebook at $50 billion!  Three months ago the value was only $36.2B.

To put this all in perspective Google’s Market Cap was $193.26B today and Yahoo’s Market cap for the day was $21.83B. Microsoft’s Market Cap is $239B today, but keep in mind MSFT owns the world.

For now, what this means for Facebook is really a legal battle and possible sanctions by the Securities and Exchange Commission for some creative investment vehicles possibly being offered by Goldman Sachs for investment in Facebook.  For Google what this means is a formidable opponent in the land of search – with enough money and enough friends to possibly deal Google a sizable blow to its advertising bottom line.

Watch and learn more here – https://www.youtube.com/user/PBSNewsHour#p/u/3/KHLSf3qMCSk

I found an interesting article regarding the perrinial online advertising favorite – Banner ads. This standard ad has been a go-to solution for online advertisers and what many people new to online advertising associate with paid search advertising. But the banner ad is suffering as of late – with click through rates at 0.09% in 2010 – a fall from an already low 0.15% in 2008. Consumers are also scorning the ads with 43% of individuals polled answering they disregard or entirely ignore internet banner ads more than any other form of advertising:

But with advertising spend on standard banner ads set to increase (bumping 11.4% in 2011 to $6.56 billion) how can advertisers improve banner ads and make the most of their online efforts?

Give Consumers What They Want

While only 21% of those polled said they would interact with a banner ad that was marketed “to them”, 77% were motivated by banner ads that included coupons, discounts and other incentives. Almost half (46%) of those polled were drawn to banner ads that provided more information on a product or could solve their problem(s). This study also noted that entertaining ads (banners with flash, animation, games, etc) were much less important to users that the special offers or problem solving ads mentioned above:

Although CTR for banner ads continues to drop, 79.6% of online conversions through banner ads were not results of clicks, but of users viewing a banner without clicking.

I came across an interesting New York Times article, “Digital Divide Is a Matter of Income,” where Teddy Wayne explains that the greatest indicator of Internet access and use is based on household income of Americans. This information is based from findings of a recent study by the Pew Research Center.

Furthermore, Wayne states that households with an income of $75,000 and more greatly exceed households that earn less than $75,000. This distinction is increased when comparing households earning more than $75,000 per year to households earning less than $30,000 per year.

The individuals from upper income households are more likely to own computers, mobile phones, e-readers and other entertainment devices that use the Internet. And, at least 95 percent of higher income households utilize the Internet in some way, while only 57 percent of poorer households have access to the Internet at home. According to Jim Jansen, a senior fellow with Pew Research Center, “the correlation between income and participation in many Internet activities might be expected.” However, Jansen continues by noting how “the scale” of which “shows the impact that income has on leveraging the advantages of the Internet.”

Wayne investigates the reasons for why people use the Internet while comparing household income. He discovers that wealthier households use the Internet for health information and online commerce activities more often then less fortunate households. And, although there is a small difference between engagement in print and television news sources, the highest income households are more than “twice as likely as the poorest to read online news.”