*I'll start with a caveat: I only read academic articles in business-related fields, and so this refers only to these. I have no idea if academic articles in other subjects are shite or not - though my research prior to writing this suggests that other folk in other fields have a similar opinion to me.
And so ... I've never been a big fan of academic research in the field of digital [or whatever it may have been called in the past] marketing.
It probably comes from having worked outside academia where I put models, concepts and theories into practice before I even knew those models, concepts and theories existed. And therein lays my bias. As far as marketing - and much of business, for that matter - is concerned, the practice came first ... then someone wrote it up as a model, concept or theory - and they [probably] sought kudos for coming up with it.
But hold on ... theories are just that aren't they? Theory. As in: does not exist in reality. Which is fine if we are talking about science. But is marketing a science or theory?
Within academia - practitioners don't really care that much - there is a constant debate over whether marketing is an art or a science. In recent years the science argument has gained strength on the back of digital applications - computers, programs, and algorithms are all science aren't they? My feet, however, are firmly planted in the art camp. Science can help marketers make decisions, but science cannot make those decisions.
Scientific study is frequently based on the assumption that there is a specific answer to every question, generally known as positivism. This is fine if all the variables or units remain the same. For example, if you add together the same amount of substance X to substance Y in a controlled environment at a set temperature there will be a fixed result. That result is the same now as when it was first conducted - and will be in the future. And it will be same result if the experiment is conducted in kathmandu or Cleethorpes.
In marketing, however, we can't even agree on what our variables and units are [add some advertising to some sales?] let alone find a controlled environment. The environment in which marketing is practiced - and researched - is made up of human beings. Humans are pesky critters who have a tendency to be different. They have differing thoughts and opinions based on individual experiences. And they are different if they are from kathmandu or Cleethorpes.
Marketing research - I believe - can at best be interpretivist, where any theory applies only in the time, place and environment in which the experiment takes place. Marketing cannot have any laws or bodies of theory that are, as in science, universal. Ergo, marketing is not a science. For a snapshot into how widely this issue is debated amongst marketers, take a look at Ritson versus Sharp: Who won the clash of the marketing titans?
So why this wander into the prickly terrain of science versus art?
Much of the following content is paraphrased or verbatim from the preface of the third edition of Digital Marketing - a Practical Approach [yes readers, if you don't reference it, you can be guilty of plagiarising your own work].
The practical nature of the content [of the book] means that there are also significant practical underpinnings - that is, there are also references to the work of practitioners who have proved themselves at the coalface of digital marketing. Furthermore, data science has - in my opinion - negated the value of some academic research. For example; I read one article on online advertising that '... applied a vector autoregressive models analysis to investigate ... ' [confession: I had to look up what vector autoregressive is]. The findings of the research were pretty accurate. I - and others - knew they were accurate because Google advertising's analytics tell us the same as the findings - but in real-time data, not an academic paper.
Academic research in the subject area is out-dated. Not only does the process of researching and publishing academic articles work against contemporary findings - an article published in 2017 may have no references that post date 2015 [or earlier] as that is when the research was conducted, but whilst some findings pass the test of time, many conclusions do not. For example, any comments with regard to social media marketing made in 2015 are not necessarily true for Internet users now. Similarly, online advertising has changed so significantly in the last two years that any research into its effectiveness that pre-dates, well ... now, is useless for anything other than history.
Also ... some of the academic research in the subject area is of dubious quality. A continuation from the previous comment is that later work often relies on the findings of earlier research without question, so making subsequent conclusions potentially flawed. In particular, meta-analysis [on academic articles] is popular in this field - I have yet to read one that questions the research rather than accepting the findings as presented. Also, a surprising amount of the research is conducted only on university campuses, with respondents being either [a] academics, or [b] students. Similarly, many requests to complete questionnaires are posted online - usually on social media. Whilst this might be acceptable for some targeted research, when investigating Internet use these samples are not reasonable representations of the population [social media users tend to stick together in 'bubbles' - the sample is likely to be made up of a similar 'bubble' to the researcher who posts it].
However - and I am not sure whether this is a compliment or criticism, but it seems most academic articles on digital marketing include in them somewhere a phrase something like:
There is still a significant gap in our understanding/research of the subject area.
I also find that the results of a great deal of academic research actually tell us nothing new. Or rather, tell practitioners nothing they have not already discovered by trial and error [see example #1].
Also with regard to academic research, I find there is confusion in the crossover between computing, business and other subject areas - with examples of discipline experts making basic errors when they stray from their own field. This includes marketers making technical statements that are flawed as well as IT writers who - without the qualification or experience in the subject - making erroneous comments about business applications, or of specific relevance to this book, marketing applications [see examples #1 and #2].
Another significant flaw within academic research in the field is that it relies on previous academic research to maintain its validity. For example, in an article by Lowry et al [2014] the question of how quickly visitors judge a website when they arrive on it. Lowry - naturally - relies on other academics to support his assertion, saying that:
'Research suggests that 80% of web surfers spend just a few seconds viewing a site before continuing to the next site [Peracchio & Luna, 2006]. Moreover, most web users are unlikely to look past the first few pages of a website (Thompson, 2004)'.
And yet the likes of Amazon knew these things in 1994. That would be 8 or 10 years before academics
proved
it. I knew them from reading the log files of websites in 1996 - as did thousands of other website publishers. Furthermore, we knew them absolutely, with no margin of error in research bias. So long as you know how to interpret them, computer-generated website analytics have no research bias. They tell you exactly how long visitors stay on your website and how deep into it they go. [update; it is now the case that Google analytics are not now as accurate as they were once believed to be] But hey ... these facts are not in a peer-reviewed academic journal, so they are not trustworthy. Furthermore, to conduct their research, Lowry et al used mocked-up websites to test their hypotheses. In real-life research, there is no mock site - they are real. Lowry et al also concentrate on the impact of logos on perceived credibility of the site - which is fine, but the logo is only part of the perception. In real life - using real-time multivariate testing - you can check all aspects of the page that might influence a visitor's perception of the site's 'credibility'.
A related scenario to the 'it doesn't count as legitimate until it's in an academic journal' is this. I recently read a half decent journal article called 'Challenges and solutions for marketing in a digital era' [Google it if you want to read it] - at least, it was half decent in 2013 when it was published. Now, as I write [in 2019] it is useful only as background reading. Anyhoo, in that article was the quote; 'As a consequence, brand managers no longer control the messaging they use to create brand strategies' which was referenced to three articles, one published in 2007 and two in 2012. But here's the thing: I have a record of me stating at a [non-academic] conference in 2001 that ' ... one of the biggest impacts of the Internet on marketing is that the marketer no longer has control over their marketing message'. Now, I'm not saying that [a] I was the only one saying it, and [b] it's unlikely that I dreamed it up myself - but isn't it strange that in an academic article the notion doesn't count if it comes from practice? It's only 'academic' when an academic writes the same thing in a published article. I wonder where Deighton, Fader and Moe & Schweider picked up the idea seven and twelve years [respectively] later? I can't be bothered to seek out their articles to see if they attribute the notion to me - or someone like me who is, perhaps, more deserving. Oh, I should add that my 'quote' is in the first book I published in 2007 and in several after that. But hey, books - even academic text books - do not count as proper research in the same way as academic articles do they?
A final flaw I encounter in academic research is partially related to reliance on previous academic research, but is one that I can only describe as ignorance of the real world. For example, I have read published work that:
What I find most frustrating about issues such as these is that those people who work in digital marketing know the things that some academics seem to be ignorant of. And that is one of - if not the - key reason I will not reference such articles in any of my books. Those books' primary objective is to help students understand digital marketing to an extent where they can find employment in the field. To direct them to flawed research as part of that learning curve will not only prevent them meeting that objective, it will hinder their progress.
Academic research, we are told, is used to test practical concepts. In some disciplines - predominantly scientific - this is perfectly valid. But where human behaviour is concerned there will always be inaccuracies in the responses from participants (yes, I know this is built into research analysis) but with computer-generated website analytics the data is absolute. There is no need for academic research to validate it. For example: all other things being equal; if real-time multivariate testing of hundreds/thousands/millions of visitors to a web page shows that they stay longer on that page if it predominantly blue rather than green - then blue works best. Asking people if they prefer blue or green in a controlled environment can never give the same degree of certainty. And yet we are meant to value that academic research more than data pulled from real-life events. I fundamentally disagree with this notion - and this is reflected in my books. For an insight into the kind of real user-based experiments conducted by the major websites, find yourself a comfortable chair, serve up a drink of your choice [tea/coffee/beer/gin] and pass some time reading Seven Rules of Thumb for Web Site Experimenters. Experience meant that when it came out in 2014 I was already aware of most of the tales included in it [I'd used some in my teaching and books - and still do], but if you are new to all things 'digital' - i.e. less than 20 years - this paper [it is not an academic paper] is essential reading.
It is also the case that I'm not a lone voice in questioning the validity of some academic papers. As he has an impressive list of publications, perhaps Dennis Tourish [a professor of leadership and organisation studies] would not totally agree with my title for this page, but his comments in Do business schools still have brand value? suggest he might at least see where my point of view comes from. He says:
On the few occasions that a delightful piece of writing catches the eye, it feels as rare as the sight of a pink unicorn unicycling across a campus quadrangle. The view seems to have taken hold that serious work must be painful to read, and almost impossible to understand. There seem to be five golden rules for academic writing in management studies these days.
First, do not write about genuinely important issues, since this might reveal that you really have nothing worthwhile to say.
Second, never use a short word where a long one will do; this prevents anyone understanding what you mean, further insuring you against criticism.
Third, never use one word when you can stretch to four; this wears your readers out, and bores them to boot.
Fourth, fresh metaphors, humour and irony wake people up, and are therefore your enemy. They should be shot on sight.
Fifth, bamboozle people with jargon, and plenty of well-known names. This further paralyses their critical senses: if Bourdieu or Heidegger said it, then it must be right. Right?
But you get bonus points if you can find a French philosopher that no one has ever heard of: the deader the better.
It often feels like this kind of work has been written by a computer rather than a person. Come to think of it, this might not be so far from the truth when you consider how much of quantitative papers consists of tables auto-generated by SPSS software, and how many "critical" papers seem to just cut and paste obligatory sets of references.
We need to call time on this kind of nonsense. Those who write like this have one primary goal: building their careers, via publishing papers.
I think that I break all of Professor Tourish's 'five golden rules' in my books – and even more so on this website – and so his comments support my assertion that I could never write an academic article. And I say that with a certain degree of pride. A footnote to Prof Tourish's piece is that I doff my cap to anyone who uses the word
deader. Kudos Prof Tourish.
A long, long way from my subject area, The Lancet has made one of the biggest retractions in modern history. How could this happen? is included here as it offers a critique of the system of academic publishing - including peer review, one of the issues that I see as being massively flawed.
My scepticism toward academic research is not, however, absolute. Of course there are papers out there which challenge conventional thinking and so inspire marketers to re-consider practices. One which springs to my mind is
A New Marketing Paradigm for Electronic Commerce by Donna Hoffman and Thomas Novak. Published in 1996 - and so written at least a year earlier - this paper predicts [almost] exactly what impact the Internet has had on digital marketing in the years since that time. It's available online - take a look and see what you think.
Furthermore, it is articles in academic journals that bother me most. There is some very good research made by academics out there that is conducted as just that: research. The best challenge the findings of other research or models/concepts that have simply become accepted with no real question.
As a footnote, however, it has to be said that my scepticism towards research also extends to that I refer to as practitioner or commercial research [I use many references to such in my books]. Independent bodies such as Nielsen deliver impartial data and analysis - but others have an in-built bias. An organization that sells software for use in marketing on Facebook will always present research into user's activity on the platform with a positive slant, for example.
My final comment on academic research is that before it is published it goes through the process of peer review. That is 'experts' in the subject area review the content for flaws. Hmmmmmm ... I'll let you judge for yourself how well this system works. And you don't really want to get me started on the
game
that is getting published in academic journals :-).
Examples of what is, in my opinion, shite research
#1 ... The Impact of Online User Reviews on Camera Sales.
#2 ... The effects of blogger recommendations on customers' online shopping intentions.
#3 ... An investigation of global versus local online branding.
#4 ... Right research ... wrong researcher.
Example 1
Zhang et al. (2013) The Impact of Online User Reviews on Camera Sales. European Journal of Marketing
The abstract of this paper includes the following:
Now, I do not doubt or question the integrity of this article's authors [or, indeed, that of any academic researcher], but - in my non-academic-research opinion - Amazon and a thousand other online retailers knew the first element of the practical implications back in the last century [I certainly did] and, by definition, a search good is a product that is easily appraised before purchase and so is subject to price competition - and so nothing new there.
As for the originality/value, Amazon - and its contemporaries - will have been, and are still, running real-time research on the impact of online user reviews on sales of search goods, again since the last century. This might have been one of the first academic studies of its kind [I have often come across references to an article by Godes and Mayzlin published in 2004 as 'the first researchers to investigate the impact of the online review'] - but it does not tell us practitioners anything we hadn't known for nigh on ten years.
-----------------------------------------
Example 3
Murphy, J. and Scharl, A. (2007) An investigation of global versus local online branding. International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 Issue: 3, pp.297-312
There are folks who refer to me as being an expert in digital marketing. I disagree. However, I do know a bit about the subject of this academic article ... domain names. I also know quite a bit about search engine optimization.
This article carries academic merit. In terms of academic vigour, the article is sound. What I am against is the value of such papers in the real world - including:.
The research supposes that the organization gave the choice of the original domain name much thought. I was there. They didn't.
In common with most [all?] academic research, there is a lapse in time between research and publication. In this case the research is stated as taking place in 2003 - the publication being in 2007. Four years is a long time in all things digital.
With very few exceptions, the dot com suffix is accepted as being the one to use if your organization trades globally. That was the case in 1996 and it is still the case now.
Hypothesis #1 says that having a dot com gives the site a higher PageRank. It might have done ... but only as one of many variables that are not factored in this research. It also assumes that that having a high score on PageRank is a significant benefit in SEO.
It isn't.
Also on the subject of Pagerank, the article states that having no PageRank means near invisibility with Google.
No it doesn't.
Dot coms were the first domain names to be commonly available, so they have the longest 'history'. This is important as one of the 200 or so variables used in the Google algorithm is length of registration of the host domain name. So, all other things being equal, a website hosted on a domain name registered in 1994 will have a higher Google ranking than any other domain registered after that.
There is some confusion between PageRank and rankings in Google's search returns. The two are not the same.
There is an inference that the dot com is a better suffix to have for search engine ranking.
This is not the case.
No other variables used in the Google algorithm are considered in this research - therefore any conclusions related to Google listings are deeply flawed.
Hypothesis #2 is little more than coincidence based on other points raised here and factors external to the Internet. For example, the article states that: 'MNCs listing a dot com domain name have a higher Fortune ranking than MNCs with a local domain.' This is simply a statement of fact, and nothing to do with the domain name.
Hypothesis #3 takes no account of the potential technical reasons for using a dot com or ccTLD ... such as hosting in local countries and using directories on a single domain giving greater control and security are often the deciding criteria.
No consideration is given to the availability of ccTLDs in all the countries in which the organization trades. If you cannot register your domain name in the suffix of every country, then you may as well stick everything on the dot com.
Hypothesis #3 uses Hofstede's dimensions as a criteria. For all of the above, I would discount it as any guide as to why a domain name was registered. Even outside my opinion on the subject of domain names, Hofstede's original 'dimensions' are widely questioned when used in a contemporary environment.
And finally - and this really is a personal viewpoint - is the use of logistic regression testing in Hypothesis #3. The sight of any kind of mathematical formula sends shivers up my spine [I think it was an Act of God when I got a maths 'O' level] - but to use them to investigate why any given company uses a dot com domain name is, well ... shite.
So there you have it. An academic paper that in an academic environment has merit ... but as a document that might help an organization choose what domain name or names it should use in its global marketing strategy, it is not only worthless, it is shite.
Example 2
Hsu et al (2013) The effects of blogger recommendations on customers' online shopping intentions. Internet Research, Vol. 23 Issue: 1, pp.69-88
The stated purpose of the paper's research was:
'... to examine whether the blog reader's trusting belief in the blogger is significant in relation to the perceived usefulness of the blogger's recommendations; and how the blog reader's perceptions influence his/her attitude and purchasing behaviour online. The moderating effect of blogger's reputation on readers' purchasing intentions is also tested.'
In my opinion, that describes research of a psychological nature - though as I am a marketer I would say the subject is consumer behaviour. Full biographies of the three authors are not available with the paper, but their university departments are listed, them being; Computer Science and Information Management. Whilst I do appreciate there are academics who have dual specialisms - there is no indication that any of the authors have any qualifications or experience in marketing, let alone consumer psychology. So, before I had even read a sentence of the paper I had my doubts about its value, let alone validity in the real world.
Furthermore, as I do when marking students' dissertations, I started with a quick look at the reference list for the paper. Of around 80 references, fewer than a quarter were to marketing, psychology or even business-related journals, the majority being from computer science fields, including several related to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). My background of working with computer scientists within a digital environment means I am aware of this model. It is an IT concept that looks at how users accept technology and in particular considers the factors that influence their decision about how and when they will use that technology. Call me naive if you wish - but in my opinion anyone who is using the Internet to read blogs that may influence their online purchase behaviour has already not only accepted the technology of the Internet, but is comfortable with it.
So why would research into consumer behaviour even mention a model designed to evaluate a technology? By this point I would normally have stopped reading the paper as I felt it carried little or no validity to my practitioner outlook to the subject of digital marketing. However, I write books on this subject - and this paper looked to be a contender for an example of my view towards academic papers in my field of study. So I read on.
Sadly I could gather no enthusiasm to continue further after reading the hypotheses, which included:
My immediate thought was; do the answers to those questions really need researching?
Anyone who has ever worked in any kind of sales environment selling any product in any industry, market or environment will tell you that if someone trusts a person who is recommending a product then they are more likely to purchase that product. As for shopping online, isn't anyone who is psychologically in a position to trust an online blogger already making purchases online?
Bringing the subject more up to date, online retailers certainly knew the answer to these questions in around 1997. I certainly did. And I am not even going to mention the role bloggers played in the early Internet, except to say that they were - probably - the first Internet authors to be trusted by users.
Finally, I checked the sampling procedure for the primary research of the paper, which included placing a banner on one of the authors' Facebook page requesting the page's visitors complete the questionnaire. I'll leave a question hanging: is that a good example of a valid sample?
--------------------------------------
Example 4
Right research, wrong researcher
Not quite an example of shite research - but you will see where I'm coming from.
I came across
this advert for someone to undertake a PhD in the 'Effectiveness of advertising within the new media context'.
Let's start by ignoring the reference to, ahem,
new media. I think they mean the Internet. I suppose nigh on 30 years is
new
when compared with, newspapers ... or Sandscript.
I'm more interested in the project description. Consider these sentences:
'Advertising, through maths and targeted media, plays a major role in the marketing of today's brands.'
'The considerable role of advertising within marketing has led to many academics and practitioners alike to study the effects of advertising on consumer attitudes and behaviour.'
Now, call me a bit naive, but from these I think the project is about marketing. For me, it's the repeated references to
advertising
and
consumers
that does it.
Yes, there is the reference to 'maths and targeted media' - but advertising has always had an element of 'maths and targeted media'.
Furthermore, the description ends with ...
' ... to what extent the short and long-term effects of advertising depend on the creative quality of an advertisement and in effect metric used.'
Again, 'creative quality of an advertisement' has more than a whiff of marketing to it. Okay, I get that - despite its shoddy description - the project is about programmatic advertising. Now, that does include a bit of maths. There might even be some machine learning and artificial intelligence. But the successful candidate won't have to do much maths and/or AI - they will use tools that use them, but they will not have to develop any programs themselves.
And so to the 'job specification'.
We are looking for applicants with a Master of Science degree. Students with quantitative-oriented background, e.g. with an MSc in statistics, econometrics, data science, or marketing intelligence are invited to apply especially.
Wellllll ... research into programmatic advertising will - probably - require quantitative analysis. But then a lot of research is quantitative. However, research into 'creative quality' and consumer behaviour normally includes - or is solely -
qualitative
research and analysis.
If we ignore 'marketing intelligence' tagged on at the end, the person who completes this PhD into a
marketing
subject will be a statistician, an economist [who specialises in economic systems] or a data scientist.
And in four years time they will be a Doctor and get a job teaching digital marketing at some university or other - which introduces another grievance of mine ... non-marketers in digital marketing.
And the research? It will be published in around five years ... when programmatic advertising will still be exactly the same as it is now, and so the findings will still be perfectly valid. Yeah, right.
How to cite this article:
Charlesworth, A. (2018). Academic articles: why are so many such shite?. Retrieved [insert date] from AlanCharlesworth.com: https://www.alancharlesworth.com/academic-articles-why-are-so-many-such-shite
This page was first published in February 2018 ... but it has been updated and amended since then.
Some of the content is drawn from my books, other pages on my websites or my public rants on the subject.
CHAPTER 4 SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION
further reading ...
If you check the bio of the author of Comparing SEO to PPC you will see she is not new to search engine marketing - and so her opinion carries some weight. Note how the articles differentiates SEO from advertising on search engines ... just as I have done in this book - and as I have done since advertising on search engines started.
If you really want to get your head around how Google works, make yourself comfortable and read Google’s Search Quality Rating Guidelines.
These search commands for Google are useful for people searching on Google - but are included here as they can also help search engine optimizers in determining where keywords/search terms can be placed within a site.
Ignore the headline of Half Say Advertising is Important in the Buying Decision – top in the list of shopper’s important purchase information sources is search engines.
If you’re serious about understanding SEO We’ve crawled the web for 32 years: What’s changed? is a must read. Its author, Mike Grehan, worked from the North East of England in the early years of the web and we shared the stage at numerous events telling owners and managers about the Internet and how it was going to change business. From the same author, and also well worth a read is The origins of E-A-T: Page content, hyperlink analysis and usage data.
How Google Trends works is an interesting background on Google Search. Similar in nature in that it offers a background in how search engines developed is What we can learn from past and present Google algorithm updates.
The Open Secret of Google Search is an interesting read on the search giant.
The issue of Why you should invest in branded keywords even if your company ranks #1 on Google has folk who argue for both side of the debate – this one is in favour.
Around the time that the book was going to print a story that Google exec suggests Instagram and TikTok are eating into Google’s core products search and maps made the rounds of SEO commentators. One such response included some different types of search which might be used on social media, see - Nearly 40% of Gen Z prefers using TikTok and Instagram for search over Google. However, Millennials Are Increasingly Using Various Methods to Search for Things Online gives a wider, and more revealing. picture – note that there is no mention of ‘prefer’ as stated in the headline above. Are 40% of Gen Z shunning Google for TikTok? Not exactly is an update [Jan 2024] on the concept.
Personal research into this matches findings by others – we’re talking about ‘lifestyle’ searches only [e.g. “lively bar near me” or “how to apply X brand of makeup"], and mainly female users. I can appreciate that watching a series of short videos of local bars might be easier than reading about them. So - message to bars attracting younger clientele ... encourage customers to post videos on TitTok.
Google is trying to reinvent search — by being more than a search engine.
Just to show that SEO is ongoing - Google helpful content system update rolling out now (December 2022 update).
Welcome to the age of social SEO: how to maximize visibility on TikTok searches.
Google ranking signals: A complete breakdown of all confirmed, rumored and false factors.
ChatGPT has some roles to play for the digital marketer - perhaps the most common/useful will be in SEO, so here's An SEO’s guide to ChatGPT prompts and AI Chat and Keyword Research.
5 Website Performance Benchmarks from Q4 2022 offers some [slightly] different stats to the chart - on website traffic sources - shown in chapter 4, but the issues are generally the same. The 5 key issues are:
1. More Than 1 in Every 3 Sessions Encounters Friction
2. Page Load Speeds Impact Bounce Rates, Page Views
3. Mobile Widens Traffic Share Lead
4. Paid Search Traffic Converts Better Than Paid Social Traffic
5. Desktop Still Boasts Far Higher Conversion Rates Than Mobile
I've included Google releases March 2023 broad core update and Google removes several search ranking algorithm updates from its ranking systems page simply as a reminder that search engines change their algorithm on a regular basis.
Is click-through rate a valuable SEO metric?
I make it clear in the book that I consider SEO and PPC ads to be different things. SEO vs. PPC: Differences, pros, cons & an integrated approach offers a different view - although it also can be read as supporting my opinion.
Brand Visibility Is the New SEO ... caused by AI, apparently.
EXERCISE: Byron Sharp purports that ‘ ... paid search is not advertising (which has as its main job building mental availability). Search is like shelf space. It’s to improve purchase availability.’ Samuel Scott offers more detail, saying that ‘Display on retailer, broker, and review sites is the same as paid search. Paid and organic search are forms of distribution, not parts of promotional marketing communications. Basically, you are getting your product put on Google, Amazon, and others' store shelves like when you pay a store to put your juice in the juice aisle. Same for getting listed on sites like G2. This is fulfilling existing demand and having physical availability. Advertising is about creating more demand and having mental availability.’ Going back in time, when I first got involved in the use of the Internet for business purposes [in 1996] I was frequently asked where the new communication medium sat with regard to the 4Ps ... and I said it was part of distribution. My opinion wasn’t supported by many – any, even – but it seems I may have had a point.
What's your opinion on the views of myself, Sharp and Scott?
50% of product searches start on Amazon includes stuff from this and other chapters - well worth a read. Note that it's from the US, so the stat in the title might not apply to you.
Organic search could be the moat your brand needs is a kind-of strategic view of SEO using quirky analogies - in general, I agree with its basic premise, not least because it syncs with my opinion.
I'm not a fan of SWOT analysis ... just use the issues raised in SEO SWOT analysis: How to optimize where it counts as a kind-of to-do list.
Another example of why SEO is a full time job is Google to fix link report in Search Console. And another... Google releases August 2023 broad core update.
Why are publishers losing traffic from Google? is about online news - but much of is relevant to other kinds of website.
To understand the present and the future - take a look at the past ... Google’s Florida update: 20 years since the SEO ‘volcanic eruption’.
The AI-powered Google apocalypse is heading for your brand is from December 2023 ... who knows how true it will turn out to be?
Google confirms a search ranking bug where sites disappear from search results over the weekend is an example of what is a fairly common problem - if your website relies on search engines for visitors [and so, business] this can hit income.
The Periodic Table of SEO Elements has been around for a few years - this is the 2024 version.
A concern with using third parties - eg Google itself - for SEO purposes is that the third party can change its operating model ... Google is shutting down websites made with Business Profiles is one such example.
And the changes keep on coming ... Google releasing massive search quality enhancements in March 2024 core update and multiple spam updates.
Who Sends Traffic on the Web and How Much? New Research from Datos & SparkToro.
Consumers' online information sources - search remains top.
You can file Small review site lost 91% of its Google traffic to affiliate-focused SEO content under 'don't put all your eggs in one basket' - relying on Google is not a good strategy for a business.
6 unpopular SEO opinions you need to consider raises some interesting and accurate points. But here's a thing I allude to in the book. The first four points are much the same as I - and others - were teaching [or is that 'preaching'] back around 1997 ... that's before the author of the article left school.
The end of May 2024 saw big news about Google's algorithm HUGE Google Search document leak reveals inner workings of ranking algorithm, here's Google's reply ... Google responds to leak: Documentation lacks context - and Unpacking Google’s massive search documentation leak is a review of the happenings. Only time will tell how big a story this was.
As I allude to in the book, I think that knowing what is being searched for in this research is vital to make it relevant ... the what might dictate where the search is started, Also, note above the article which states that 50% of product searches start on Amazon - where does that fit into Almost Half of Gen Zers Opt for Social over Google for Search?
Is The Google Maps pin scam: A new Google Business Profile threat common? I doubt it - but I've included this article because keeping track of scams like it is an example of why SEO is a full time occupation.
Which Topics Are Gen Zers Searching for on Social Media?
In all aspects of digital marketing new terms come and go. I wonder GEO will stay the course, or disappear like so many others? See What is generative engine optimization (GEO)?
Again, it never stops ... Google August 2024 core update rollout is now complete.
Google updates crawl budget docs for large sites with differing mobile and desktop pages and links ...Google said it is best practice to have all links present on both mobile and desktop versions. I would ask; why on earth would you have different differing mobile and desktop pages and links? Maybe another example of non-marketers in marketing? [see chapter 3]
ThatLong-tail keywords: Target lower-competition phrases and attract qualified visitors has been published by [one of] the world's major SEO websites suggests that some folk are not aware of the issue. I and others were writing about it 25 years ago. Ho hum.
I've included How to fix the ‘Page with redirect’ error in Google Search Console simply as an[other] example of some of the stuff that competent SEOs need to know.
Another reminder that SEO doesn't stand still ... Google quietly updated the News and Discover manual action policies.
Although Google’s search market share drops below 90% for first time since 2015, it's still got 90% of the market so me talking about Google so much in the book is still valid.
Another example of the problem of [potentially] putting all your marketing eggs in one basket ... Google bug cause reviews to drop out of local listings.
59% of Americans click on brands they know in Google results: Survey ... also, nearly half of Americans trust organic results more than paid results and Google remains the most trusted source for information.
And again, again, it never stops ... Google March 2025 core update. And rules change as well ... Google Ads policy update.
In the book I mention the importance of E-A-T, 14 ways Google may evaluate E-A-T is a good guide … but it also shows that SEO isn’t as easy – or quick – as some folk would have you believe.
More on the subject ... E-A-T auditing: How to level up your credibility game
Naturally, just days after the book was published, this happened ... Google doubles up on E with updated search quality raters guidelines (E-E-A-T) - and here's another article, this one with more details ... How Google may identify and evaluate authors through E-E-A-T. And nearly a year later ... Debunking common Google E-E-A-T misconceptions.
The two parts of E-E-A-T Google hasn’t told you about.
Barry Schwartz's list of what is NOT a Google search ranking factor.
--------------
ZERO-CLICK
[April 2023] There is a lot being said about AI-developed content and its impact on SEO - well here's my take. I think that impact will be on zero-click with searches producing more and more SE-developed content ... and that content will be produced by LLMs which will reproduce the content of websites. Furthermore, those websites' owners/publishers will not be compensated [via links] by the search engines.
In the book I suggest that Google was holding the zero-click percentage at around 50% - welllllll, I missed later data from the same researcher that proposed that figure upped it to 65% - around two thirds. In 2020, Two Thirds of Google Searches Ended Without a Click – although note that the research on which this was based does not include the CTR paid links to Google sites.
Google isn’t the only guilty platform to see the value of this strategy; see; Zero-Click Content: The Counter-intuitive Way to Succeed in a Platform-Native World.
More on zero clicks - with Google search study: 25.6% of desktop, 17.3% of mobile are zero-click offering some very different stats to those listed in the book. That said, the research seems to be a bit different. One thing about this research, however, is that the CTR on ads is less than 2%. That seems very low to me.
Nearly 60% of Google searches end without a click in 2024.
As per my comment at the beginning of this section ... 75% of Google AI Overview links come from top 12 organic rankings.
Ex-Google exec: Giving traffic to publishers ‘a necessary evil’ is an article on zero clicks which doesn't use the term.
--------------
Another innovation from Google to keep you on Google - Google Maps adds new store location feature, Locator Plus, Reserve with Google integration, new analytics and more.
A Small Business Guide to Google My Business ... I think there is a reasonable argument that for many small businesses, this could be their web presence.
I’ve included the biggest mystery of Google’s algorithm: Everything ever said about clicks, CTR and bounce rate here as an example of how no one really knows how the Google algorithm works. As if it counts ... I’ve always thought that CTR counted, making it easier to stay in the top spot on a SERP than get to it.
Another version of How Important is The Top Search Result on Google? to the chart shown in the book.
Nothing that's really new in 16 reasons why your page isn’t ranking on Google but it's always good to have a list.
Keyword Research for Product Content
The Search Before the Search: Keyword Foraging.
I’ve put How to do a competitive analysis for local SEO in this section [where local search is covered] but it is relevant to other sections also.
What do you think the Most Searched Consumer Brands in the world in 2022 are? I’m not surprised [I’ve been around a while] but the why still amazes me.
The case of the stealth Google-bomb is about the role of domain names in SEO. You should know most of it if you're to work in SEO. It also kind-of confirms the value of keywords. Find out more about domain names.
YouTube SEO: How to find the best traffic-generating keywords.
Yes, SEO Keywords Remain Important.
SEO: Targeting the Long Tail for More Sales.
Here's a nice - and simply - tip SEO Signals from SERPs.
What Is SEO Writing? How to Be a Better SEO Writer is included in this section as its focus is SEO. However, although it is a reasonable guide to the practice, the article could also be in the section on developing website content and also content marketing. It also offers an insight into the skills, time and application required to get the job right.
I could have put How to attract your ideal customers with quality content in the later chapter on website development, but as it has a SEO focus, I’ve included it here.
Google doesn’t want your AI-generated SEO spam content.
Given the nature of much of this site [this page, for example] Outgoing links: Are they beneficial for your site or not? is something I've taken notice of over the years.
SEO content writing vs. content writing: The key difference.
An SEO’s guide to understanding large language models (LLMs).
This was true in 1996 ... seems it's still true now - 85% of titles feature keywords in Positions 1-5 of Google.
I think this issue - Does HTML structure matter for SEO? - is more important than many folk realise. One thing not covered in this article is that the search engines dislike pages that don't adapt for mobile devices. I found this out for this site and had to accept a PC format I didn't really to meet the mobile requiement.
How to audit your site’s backlink profile Auditing your backlinks is a process that should be part of your regular SEO routine. Here's a guide on how to do it.
I've included How to outsource link building: Benefits and tips to follow not just for the advice it contains, but as another example of the specialized jobs that are out there.
Links are not a top 3 Google Search ranking factor, says Gary Illyes ... 'I think they are important, but I think people overestimate the importance of links'.
Does guest blogging still work for SEO? Pros ... cons and best practices.
SNIPPET
Smile please - Colgate's oral health website
I’m not sure which section using the amazon search engine as marketing belongs in – but as Google may well pick up the Amazon listing, I’ve put it here. Obviously, it’s not for everyone, but for some it could be a really good idea.
Here are a few articles on links that are a bit old - but they will tell you all you need to know. If you take the time to read them all you will come to appreciate that not only is serious link building a strategic concern, but it is very time consuming. However, on the strategic side of things, you will note that some of the suggestions go beyond link building eg developing a competition on your website to encourage links - the competition itself might be considered as a marketing tactic in its own right. In other words, SEO should be a key aspect of the organization's marketing strategy. 50+ More Things Every Link Builder Should Know, 4 Ways to Wash Away The Link Building Hate, 5 Pieces Of Content: 25 Link Ideas, Link to my awesome content, please!, How To Attract Killer Links For E-Commerce Sites and 10 Questions To Ask When Creating A Link Building Campaign does answer some of the basic questions on the issue, and so is useful - however, some of it does seem just a bit creepy to me. Not sure it's the type of job I would enjoy doing every day :)
How to gain value from broken backlinks is perhaps for more serious SEO - but it shows that effective SEO is a full time occupation.
I have to say that I didn't realise this was so big a thing ...‘Link in bio’ platforms: Which is best for SEO?
GO ONLINE *page 91*
Two of the best SEO guides are Search Engine Land‘s Guide to SEO and Ahrefs’ The Beginner’s Guide to SEO.
Enterprise SEO: Lessons from 20 years in the trenches
I’ve put
9 roadblocks to SEO success here rather than in earlier sections because, effectively, it is about strategic SEO.
How to manage and edit your Google Business Profile from Google search.
1 million URLs: How to pivot your SEO strategy when you reach enterprise level
11 enterprise SEO challenges and solutions
How to plan and budget for enterprise SEO
I didn’t mention Negative SEO in the book, but it deserves a mention. I’ve put it in this section as although all websites are susceptible to it, only major websites are likely to be victims. 6 types of negative SEO to watch out for explains what it’s all about and Negative SEO Disavow Lists lets you know the basics.
How one company’s rebrand and domain name change led to SEO disaster details how getting this wrong can mean the end of a business - but in this example the organization failed to follow advice and guides that have been around since the turn of the century.
How to choose an enterprise SEO platform - what you need to know in choosing the right enterprise SEO platform.
7 tips to turn Google’s Search Essentials into strategy covers the key issues.
I could have put SEO and website design: How to build search engine-friendly sites pretty much anywhere on this page - but it's most relevant here.
Beyond SEO: Embracing the future of organic search optimization.
10 simple steps to analyze your brand SERP and build an effective digital strategy is very good ... but remember it is for a brand name - not all key words [though some of the tips could apply to general keyword issues].
Cross-border SEO for Same-language Sites.
I've put How to fix a huge traffic drop after rebranding here as I think
re-branding comes under 'enterprise SEO' ;-)