Blog

Google’s Continuous Scroll: How long is page 1, really?

Google announced in late 2022 that they would be rolling out a “continuous scrolling experience” for English language desktop searches performed in the United States. (Mobile users will note that they have been seeing results like this since late 2021.) This means that when you search on Google and reach the bottom of page 1, instead of clicking to go to page 2 of search, Google automatically adds the next page of results to the bottom of the current page. The new user experience is more like Facebook – as you scroll, you get more choices for engagement.

Obviously, this challenges the old reputation management wisdom that a client’s primary concern should be mostly about page 1, with subsequent pages being less relevant. How should we be defining “page 1” now?

As it turns out, there are several reasons not to worry, and some best practices that emerge from this change.

Firstly, Google’s algorithm and its set of features are constantly changing, and many features like this have been rolled back in the past. Features on Google are somewhat fluid, so watchful / prepared is much better than panicked.

Secondly, the core search algorithm has not changed, and we therefore do not anticipate a sudden drop in page 1 satisfaction and an increase in demand for a second page of results, no matter how the next set of search results is loaded. Unlike social media platforms like Facebook and TikTok which endeavor to keep you engaged with them for longer periods, Google’s stated focus has always been on satisfying user’s communicated search intent quickly – minimizing your time on their site, and guaranteeing you come back habitually. This is part of Google’s DNA and is unlikely to change.

And in fact, industry clicking and eye tracking studies since the mobile roll out have consistently shown that the first 10 or so results still satisfy over 90% of searchers.

Here’s the “But”…

That said, more accessible and efficient transitions typically lead to those transitions being utilized more frequently by users.  The larger screens on desktop devices could also increase the number of search results seen when the next page loads.  We therefore anticipate a small but noticeable increase in desktop impressions and clicks for page 2 search results.

That means that Page 2 matters a bit more. Field data we saw following the mobile continuous scrolling launch suggested that this change made page 2 results more easily accessible for users, and impressions (eyeballs) on page 2 mobile results increased by around 10%, although the impact on clicks to these results was less noticeable.

Bottom line: brands and individuals should continue to prioritize ownership and control of their online narrative as reflected by the quality of their page 1 Google Search results.  Ensuring that this first set of results fully addresses and satisfies searchers’ varied intents is the best way to obviate the need for searchers to continue scrolling past page 1.

For those with prominent unfavorable content in page 2 search results, we recommend dedicating more time and resources into expanding their ownership and control over page 2 moving forward, because these results may now be seen more frequently by searchers.

Reputation Risk: The Bottom Line

Intangible assets have been the subject of much discussion in recent months. One of the oldest intangible assets, predating today’s technological versions by millennia, is reputation. Many old adages tell us how valuable it is. But can we actually measure it, in dollars?

The extent to which reputation contributes to a company’s value is staggering.

Research points to anywhere between a third and two thirds of a company’s overall value being attributed to its reputation (according to recent reports published by Lloyd’s & KPMG and Weber Shandwick respectively). In a recent research report, Simon Cole and Greg Quine of Reputation Dividend showed that the reputation of icon brands such as Apple and Amazon contribute 57% ($1.248b) and 56% ($950m) respectively of their market capitalization. This varying range seems somewhat broad, which aligns with the underlying intangible nature of reputation. In fact, it is this intangible ambiguity that lies at the heart of the quest to put a price tag on reputation within the corporate setting. Quantifying it might help us understand it a bit better.

Over the last thirty years there has been a considerable amount of academic research on corporate reputation. The research straddles three fundamental constructs regarding the definition of reputation.

The first relates to a construct whereby reputation refers to the expectations that people have about the entity’s behavior, exemplified in the Fortune Magazine’s Fortune Most Admired Companies (FMAC) and the Axios Harris Poll 100 measures of reputation.

The second construct relates to the notion of Corporate (or brand) Personality, which refers to the “personality traits” that people attribute to organizations.

The third construct integrates the concept of trust as a starting point, and takes into account the perception of the entity’s honesty, reliability, and benevolence as the main elements of its reputation. The measuring tool named Corporate Credibility developed by Newell and Goldsmith in 2001 is an example of this approach.

Across the three constructs, the need for companies to establish corporate responsibility in an active way – and the need for a more uniform definition of what “corporate responsibility” means – has  made research on brand reputation, as it converges with research related to corporate responsibility, a crucial piece of a company’s strategy these days.

Today, corporate reputation is generally defined as the collective perception of the organization’s past actions, and expectations regarding its future actions in terms of its capabilities and character. Although not completely standardized, the increased uniformity regarding corporate reputation and its constituent driving factors have paved the way for the emergence of the empirical measurement of corporate reputation.

Companies such as RepTrak and Alva are leading the charge in the creation of corporate reputation measurement indices with the former focusing more on the emotional factors attributed by stakeholders to a company’s brands. Alva is a sentiment index created by using AI and NLP to aggregate and analyze digital content.

Beyond these reputation indices, there are a number of financial metrics that are being used to not only measure corporate reputation in terms of economic value, but to correlate it with financial performance. Metrics such as ‘reputation dividend’ and the adaptation of economic value measures such as Tobin’s Q are the forebearers of a more widespread measurement of the economic value of corporate reputation.

Perhaps one of the most telling indicators of the increase in measuring economic valuation of corporate reputation is the emergence of reputation risk insurance policies provided by large insurance underwriters. This trend commenced in 2011 with Zurich Financial Services offering its “Brand Assurance” policy.

Today most of the large insurance companies have some sort of reputation risk policies. The mere fact that these insurance juggernauts have been underwriting reputation risk for almost a decade implies that they have the ability to assess and price this type of risk, although the components and triggers of the policies across the insurers varies. Once again, these variances arise from the intangible and qualitative nature of reputation.

With the increased contribution of reputation to company’s economic value and the move towards empirical measurement and pricing of this intangible asset, executives should integrate reputation risk management into a company’s overall governance policy and decision making.

Whatever the exact value of a reputation is, its undisputed value means that protecting a brand’s reputation is crucial. In this regard, adequate tracking and monitoring of online reputation are only part of the story. Crisis proofing (such as building a strong digital presence and a crisis response protocol) are also key. Reputation risk actually must be addressed in a holistic, cross-functional way, since reputational damage can emerge from any source within a company and its related stakeholders.

For a free consultation on your company’s digital reputation, contact us here.

Click Through Redux

What information do your stakeholders learn on the search page before ever clicking through to your site?

Recently, Sistrix, a digital marketing software company, published an in-depth study to better understand click through rates, or “CTR”, in Google search. (This is the percentage of people seeing a link who click it.) They analyzed over 80 million keywords and billions of search results (on mobile devices). Here are some highlights that may be useful when thinking about your company’s appearance in search results:

(Image from Sistrix)

About Click Through Rate:

• The average CTR for the first position in Google is 28.5%
• The second result sees an average CTR of 15.7%
• The third result receives a CTR of only 11% 
• The 10th result on the page (bottom of page 1) averages just 2.5% CTR. 

As you can see, the click-through rate drops rapidly following the first result on the page. The top result is ten times more likely to be clicked than the 10th result. The most notable jump, however, is from position#1 to #2. The first result is almost twice as likely to be clicked than the second one on the page. 

Another interesting note: The second page never returned a result higher than 1% CTR. Put in simple terms – if the result is not on page 1, it will likely never be seen. 

It is interesting to ponder if perhaps there is a circular effect here: The lower a result is on the page, the fewer people click on it; and the fewer people click on it, the lower it falls. Perhaps helping unfavorable results fall down the page is an even more valuable tactic than many realize, as the fall has an echoing effect on the strength of the item. 

Mitigating Factors: Intent Matters, Features Matter 

Intent

It is not possible to group all types of searches together. People use Google to access many different types of information, and the type of search will have a great impact on the Click Through Rate. 

For example, someone searching for a study on a research topic is a lot more likely to click through to a result than someone who is looking for a movie time. 

Search Features

Google displays different results layouts with varying features for different types of queries. These can include: 

Featured Snippets – These are boxes with dynamic information related to the specific search query. These are generally designed to provide a direct answer to the question being asked by the searcher.

When a featured Snippet is displayed at the top of results, the #1 result loses 5.3% CTR. 

However, results #2 and #3 actually receive a boost, rising to 20.5% and 13.3% respectively.

Knowledge Panels – These are sidebars that display information about a person, company, location, etc. 

Knowledge panels are one of the most significant features that appear to affect CTR. When they are displayed, result #1 drops from a 28% CTR down to just 16%. 

This result is likely one of the most affected by the fact that the Sistrix study was performed on mobile device searches. On desktops, this panel is on the upper right-hand side next to the organic results and is more easily ignored by searchers. On mobile, the panel displays the information inline with the other results – typically at or near the very top of the search page, and sometimes before any organic result is seen. 

Sitelinks – Sitelinks are sub-results directing to other relevant results from a given site. They appear under the site’s main search result (typically the corporate homepage in branded searches) in Google. These links only appear for the #1 result on the page, and typically only for highly relevant domains with a clear content structure. Sitelinks tend to appear when Google perceives the intent of the search to be targeted towards a specific website or company.

When the #1 result displays sitelinks, the CTR jumps to a staggering 46.9%. The #2 and #3 slots drop dramatically to 11% and 5.6% respectively.  

While this data seems to imply that having sitelinks greatly increases your click rate, it is important to note that search intent is likely a major factor in this statistic. In other words, search results that display sitelinks are those that Google interprets as likely looking for a specific website. Therefore, these searchers are far more likely to click through to that website – not necessarily because of the presentation in search but because of the implied intent of the query itself. 

Similar to sitelinks, there are many other features that can be displayed in results, such as News, Video carousels, Social media boxes, Location boxes, and more. Generally, the data suggests that the more features Google displays, the lower the CTR of regular results becomes. 

How can you use all this information?

It is important, then, to leverage all relevant search features: Companies can make sure their websites are optimized for featured snippets and sitelinks, claim their Knowledge Panels, and leverage other features like Google’s People Also Ask box wisely.  

What information do your stakeholders learn on the search page before ever clicking through to your site? 

Perhaps they already learned what they needed to from the Knowledge Panel or the Featured Snippet? 

Maybe the question was answered by an FAQ on your site which ended up in the “People Also Ask” feature? 

Does your content strategy aim to answer questions for stakeholders, rather than simply telling people what you wish to tell them?

Strategic, data-driven focus  – controlling the things you can – is a key component of reputation management in today’s climate, and we predict that the importance of this component will only grow in the future. 

Presidents’ Day: Google’s Complicated Relationship with Alexander Hamilton

We think you will agree that the best US president to focus on this Presidents’ Day 2020 is Alexander Hamilton. You know who we mean: “The ten-dollar founding father without a father,” as he is called in Lin Manuel Miranda’s musical, Hamilton.

Except for one small detail. Hamilton was never president. Nope, not even a little bit. And yet a lot of people, and at least one extremely important non-person, think he was.

Can You Answer This Question?

We conducted a (very) informal survey among our friends and asked them to name a few US presidents. Everyone listed Washington and Lincoln. Almost all of those asked also said, incorrectly, Hamilton. 

Our small group of ill-informed respondents is not alone. According to a 2016 study, “about 71 percent of Americans are fairly certain that Alexander Hamilton is among our nation’s past presidents.”

In fact, most Americans are more confident that Hamilton was president than they are about half a dozen actual presidents.

But we shouldn’t shame people who either weren’t around when that Got Milk? ad came out, or can’t afford hundreds  of dollars for a ticket to a Broadway show, for not knowing American history, can we? Or maybe we can, since there is a great source of information available, entirely for free, at the tips of their fingers.

Or is there?

Go Ahead and Google It. 

We are referring to the internet, of course. We have outsourced the data part of our brain to the all-knowing Google.

So, who (is Google a “who”?) better to correct our error about Hamilton? Let’s have a look at what Google has to say about our beloved President Hamilton.

If you search for “President Hamilton,” Google does not display a screen saying, “No, you are mistaken.” Rather, it disappointingly encourages the error in its “People also ask” section, with the following four questions (sic):

What number of president was Alexander Hamilton?

Was Alexander Hamilton president of the US?

What year was Alexander Hamilton President?”

Which president died in a duel?

Even when you look at the answer to “Was Alexander Hamilton president of the US?” Google seems confused and doesn’t give you a straight yes/no answer.

Similarly, the answer to “What year was Alexander Hamilton President?” is not the correct answer of “never,” but rather somewhat avoidant:

Fewer people search for “President Hamilton” than for “Alexander Hamilton.” There was a huge spike in the number of searches for “Alexander Hamilton” around the time the musical came out. More and more people wanted to know who he was.

Indeed, things are marginally better if you search simply for “Alexander Hamilton.”

The second and third questions still imply that he was president, whereas question four actually confirms that he was never president. 

At least two of the questions imply that Hamilton did serve as president.

As the lyric from the musical goes: “You have no control who lives, who dies, who tells your story.”

Enter “President” Franklin

Google is definitely telling its own story when it comes to Alexander Hamilton. But it’s not just about Hamilton. 

If you would be so foolish as to search for “President Benjamin Franklin” (as we were) you would find that Google also fails to set you straight.

We are so used to Google supplying us with information, that we often trust it unquestioningly. Often, that works out fine.

If you ask Google “what is the capital of bolivia”

Or, “who was the actress in casablanca?”

You get a clear answer.

But don’t ask Google, for example, “does Australia exist” since only one result on the page gives the correct answer; Australia does, in fact, exist.

In short, it is up to users to carefully examine each search result, taking responsibility not to outsource the thinking parts of their brains in addition to the data parts.

And just for clarity’s sake, Alexander Hamilton, although a really interesting  guy with a talent for rap, was never the President of the United States.

So, what happens when they Google you?

What searchers think about a CEO’s search results

As an Intelligent Digital Reputation Management company, we are constantly doing research to understand how Google presents brands and executives in search. We also research how searchers utilize search engines to make decisions. 

In August, we asked 672 US adults about their likelihood of doing business with Signiphy (a fictitious company) based on a provided set of search results – in visual form (see composite example below ) – for the (fictitious) CEO, Dave Miller.

Respondents were asked to imagine they were already considering doing business with the company and, as a next step, had decided to Google the CEO. Each participant was shown one of several variants of the search results page and was then asked to answer some questions about the page they saw. 

Here’s what we found:

1 IMAGE BOX

This is intuitive – but it was borne out clearly in our research: Images on a search page help paint a picture in the searcher’s mind, more easily than any block of text, and affect how the searcher feels about the person they are searching.

We used images that depicted a CEO in a suit, smiling. He was evaluated as friendly and influential, and – notably – drove 80% more people to say they’d like him as a business partner compared to those who did not see the version with images. The majority of people, however, said they needed more information to decide.

Takeaway: Given how salient images are in searchers’ minds, well curated images can be a key factor in cultivating a favorable first impression.

2 VIDEO BOX

Video boxes take the impact of the visuals to another level. Like the image box, the video box in our study boosted impressions of the CEO as influential and friendly. 

More than that, though, having a video box with favorable content helps solidify appeal of the subject for the searcher. Nearly 60% of people who saw the version with the video box indicated an increased likelihood to do business with the CEO’s company. Presence of the videos also boosted people’s sense that they had enough information to make a decision about doing business. 

Takeaway: Videos that portray the CEO as a thought leader, hosted on known media (such as Forbes)– or even sites that appear to confer authority such as CNBC – are key in shaping searchers’ impressions of the CEO.

3 RATING SITES

Glassdoor is a site that allows current and former employees to rate their employer and its CEO. The site often appears on page one of Google search and is always shown with rating stars. Consequently, Glassdoor results are eye-catching and easier to quickly interpret compared to an all-text result. 

The Glassdoor result in our research was shown with a mediocre 2.5 star rating. This led people who saw this result to be less likely to do business with the company, more so, in fact, than those who saw an all-text negative result about a pending lawsuit against the CEO. 

People are used to seeing rating stars in searches for products and know to stay away when a product has few stars. That intuition transfers when rating stars are shown for a CEO, making Glassdoor an important result to watch. 

Takeaway: If your brand has results with star ratings – Yelp, Glassdoor, or others – it is important to manage these and ensure that the star ratings are high – or alternatively that these results are not appearing prominently. Either way, brands need strategies aimed at managing these types of sites. 

4 AUTHORITATIVE SITES

Bloomberg and Wikipedia are consistently among the most frequent sites to appear prominently in search results for CEOs. They typically appear toward the top of the page.

In our research, these two sites were the most frequently mentioned (in open ended replies) as the first places the searcher would click for more information.

Takeaway: Bloomberg and Wikipedia are deemed authoritative and trustworthy. This makes them an important component of a CEO’s digital presence.

5 KNOWLEDGE PANEL

As mentioned above, searchers’ attention will inevitably drift toward the visual, easily processed information on a search page. Even so, it is important to curate the text-only components of one’s search results. (This is especially true when there are fewer attention getting visual elements, where searchers are likely to take the time to read the text-based results.) 

Our test pages mentioned both in the Wikipedia result and in the corporate bio that the CEO had been in that position for nine years. That information was duplicated in the knowledge panel blurb, which uses the first sentence from the subject’s Wikipedia page. People deemed that information useful and likely noticed it because it appeared in multiple places.

Takeaway: Curating search results by making sure key information appears in multiple authoritative online sources ensures that searchers will see desired information about the company or individual they are searching.

Searching for Boris

If someone has negative results appearing in search, does it make sense for them to try to “deceive” Google by using terms associated with the negative result in positive ways? A meditation on models and buses. 

Amid the political drama of Brexit, a hung parliament, and upcoming elections, the virtual Boris Johnson also caused a stir, especially among digital media professionals.

A recent Wired article discussed the fascinating, odd phenomenon of Boris Johnson’s “off script” ramblings, rumored to be an attempt to “game Google.”

It began on June 20, 2019, when Johnson gave a most peculiar interview on Britain’s TalkRadio. He was not yet prime minister of the UK but was already the most likely candidate to replace Theresa May. He was asked what he does to relax. His reply, many will remember, was perplexing: “I make things. I make models of buses.” He went into detail about this unexpected hobby.

Almost immediately, pundits began to suspect there was something more cunning behind Johnson’s answer than the average politician’s disconnect from real people. Maybe, they surmised, it was a calculated move to improve his search results.

You see, Boris Johnson was already famous for another bus – one in which he rode around the country before the Brexit vote, encouraging people to vote to leave the European Union. On the side of that bus, in big letters, it said, “We send £350 million to Europe, let’s fund our NHS instead,” which was a contentious statement, and perhaps an outright lie.

First the social media opinion makers, and then everyone from Gizmodo to John Oliver, suggested that perhaps Johnson specifically spoke about model buses, so that anyone searching for “Boris Johnson bus” would read about the models, not the Brexit campaign.

This seemed unlikely at first. But then, in early September, shortly after media reports that the police had been called to a flat Johnson shared with his girlfriend Carrie Symonds, Boris gave a rambling speech while standing in front of a group of police cadets. Was that another attempt to manipulate Google?

And then on September 29, in an interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr, Johnson insisted he was “a model of restraint.” The phrase was picked up in headlines across the country and internationally. Coincidentally (or not), he said this a day after police opened an investigation into potential criminal misconduct for awarding state money to model Jennifer Arcuri, an alleged mistress.

Oscar Wilde wrote, “To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.” In the case of Johnson, repeating the supposed “trick” three times makes it seem like an attempt to massage his search results and media.

The question is – assuming it is a trick – does it even work? If someone has negative results appearing in search, does it make sense for him or her to try to “deceive” Google by using terms associated with the negative result in positive ways?

If you looked at the search results immediately after Johnson spoke about his model buses, most of the results were about the models, rather than the Brexit bus. So, it was a clear short-term win. But the Brexit bus was already old news, and Boris mumbling about his hobbies was probably just about as exciting for readers. 

Furthermore, a couple of months later, the hobby buses have largely disappeared from search results (though “luckily” for Boris, the company that made the buses went bankrupt, so that has dominated the results.)

With the police and the model diversions, Johnson was less successful. Of the average 10 results on page 1 of Google search, one or two were about the positive spin, most were negative, and a couple were articles like this one, discussing whether or not Boris was intentionally trying to manipulate the results (it’s unclear whether these discussions please Johnson.)

But fundamentally, even if the theory is true and he really was using these tactics to manipulate search, it would be the wrong approach to take for a very simple reason: User behavior. 

Someone who searches for “Boris Johnson bus” or “Boris Johnson model” is looking specifically for the “dirt.” Even if, hypothetically, there are no negative results on page 1, someone looking for information on Johnson and Jennifer Arcuri will simply click to page 2 or use more focused search key words until they find what they are looking for. With a specific search like that, there is no point trying to manipulate the results (even if such a thing were possible): you cannot fool the searchers themselves.

Perhaps the PR team behind this initiative got a pat on the back from Johnson – at least they managed to remove some of the negatives for a few days. But in fact, they didn’t really make any difference at all to Johnson’s online reputation.

We spend all day thinking about and working on client’s online reputation, and we know that cheap tricks and short-term fixes are not the way to go. Nor does it make sense to focus specifically on the negative terms, because someone who is looking for the negatives will find them.

Rather, we would be more interested in what search results look like for “Boris Johnson” or “UK Prime Minister.” If someone searches with no preconceived ideas, what do they find?

There is such a constant torrent of news about Johnson and Brexit, that it would be impossible to take complete control of his search results right now. Nonetheless, a search for “Boris Johnson” includes his Wikipedia article (which almost always ranks near the top of page 1 for the subject, and which is supposed to be unbiased and fairly written.) His Twitter account and his Facebook profile both rank on page 1. So, he “owns” two of the results on page 1 (and has a Twitter box, which occupies more space that he controls.)

Let’s look at a couple of senior members of Johnson’s cabinet. Jacob Rees-Mogg is Leader of the House of Commons. Page 1 of his Google results include his Twitter and Facebook profiles, his Wikipedia entry, and his profile on www.parliament.uk. 

Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sajid Javid, has results from Wikipedia, Twitter, www.parliament.uk, www.gov.uk, and his own website, https://www.sajidjavid.com. These types of “owned” results occupy the top half of the first page of Google, knocking out negative results and allowing those MPs to more closely control their online reputations.

We don’t know for certain whether Johnson was trying to use tricks to manipulate his search results, but we do know that if he were to ask us, we’d tell him this: Sir, you’d be better off focusing your energy on optimizing  www.boris-johnson.com  (a site not updated since 2016) and/or populating borisjohnson.com, which is not even live. You could also strengthen your owned results for the search term “Boris Johnson,” rather than speaking about model buses or posing with policemen. Your PR team is welcome to contact us. You can go back to the models. 

CEO Salary: Highly Visible in Search

Some of our clients wondered: How prominently does a CEO’s salary appear in searches for his or her name? Turns out, fairly prominently.

Here’s what we found:

The Politics of Search

Are political leaders in the US on both sides of the aisle receiving fair treatment from Google?

This concern is a central element driving Congressional inquiry into the search engine giant along with other search industry leaders.

We looked at Google page 1 search results for 51 key politicians (25 each Democrats and Republicans, 1 Independent) polled across 12 locations (4 each red, blue, and purple states) for 7 days (March 8-14, 2019).

Below is what we found.

In a nutshell: News Media items ranking in Google did not seem to follow assumed rules for political affiliation.

Online Reputation Management (ORM) and SEO: What’s the difference and do I need both?

As a business or brand, how do you know if you need online reputation management (ORM) or search engine optimization (SEO) – or both? The distinction between the two is often blurred, because both utilize some of the same search engine optimization principles and tools.

What is Search Engine Optimization?

– SEO focuses on promoting a specific website and increasing targeted traffic.
– SEO typically focuses on competitive keywords such as “men’s hiking boots” or “brown rain boots” rather than on the name of a company.

What is Online Reputation Management?

– ORM impacts searches for branded keywords in order to shape how stakeholders see your brand. It typically focuses on the name of a company, brand, or individual.
– ORM isn’t about making a sale, but about having a positive impact on the brand for long-term success.
– ORM focuses on the entire search results page. This includes the organic search results, the knowledge graph, crowd-sourced information, videos and images, and Wikipedia and business profiles.

The key difference is that the goal of SEO is to ensure that people find your company online, while ORM shapes the opinion people form of you based on information available online. To distinguish the two even further, it’s helpful to remember that SEO gets your foot in the door and gets you noticed, while ORM gets people coming through the door once they’ve heard about you.

Implementing ORM tactics can have a powerful effect on your brand and your business, as search results influence the perception and opinion of key stakeholders and clients. Search engine optimization is often owned by the marketing department since the goal is typically to increase leads and sales; while online reputation management is usually integrated with communications and PR efforts.

As digital marketing becomes more important for virtually every company, there is an increased need for brands to leverage both ORM and SEO to maximize their online potential. Five Blocks recommends using both; while most people have heard of SEO, ultimately ORM efforts will have a broader impact on your brand and your business.

At Five Blocks we leverage data, proprietary technology, and over a decade of expertise to help clients achieve a fair digital representation of themselves and their work.

If you’re looking to implement a digital reputation management program, or need help managing your digital reputation, contact us for a free assessment of your current situation.

You may also like:

• Managing Your Online Reputation – Where Do You Start?
• How One Small Technical Error by Forbes Changed the Reputation of Fortune 500 CEOs… Overnight
• Five Questions to Ask Yourself About Your Brand’s Digital Reputation

Sam Discusses Digital Reputation with Communications Match (Video)

Recently, Five Blocks CEO Sam Michelson spoke with Communications Match about what brands can do to manage their Digital Reputation. In this interview, Sam discusses:

• How do you define Reputation Management in a world of digital?
• What should brands do to manage their digital reputation?
• What does success look like and how do you achieve it?

Chrome Hopes to Unblock your Ads – by Blocking Ads!

Building an online reputation involves targeting searchers with your brand’s messaging and ensuring that searchers see your preferred content. Using online advertising can be a great way to ensure that searchers encounter your messaging online. But now, the ability to laser target searchers by buying ads could be impacted by a new plan by Google to help millions of users block paid ads.

In mid-April the Wall Street Journal reported that Google is planning to build adblocking features into its Chrome web browser. While Google still may decide not to move ahead with this plan, if they do, this could become the default.

What is Adblocking?

Adblocking is the process of blocking online ads from appearing in a web browser. It generally works via a browser ‘add-on’ or ‘extension’ that can be downloaded for various browser types.  The objective is to improve the browsing experience by stopping intrusive, annoying, or unhelpful ads from appearing within web pages.

Adblocking software has been available for about 15 years and while Adblock was the first (created in 2002 by a Danish student), there are now many popular adblocking programs available.

What will Google’s Chrome ad blocker do?

Rather than block all ads, as users may currently expect their adblockers to do, Google’s will emphasize filtering out specific types of ads that contribute to a poor user experience. The choice of which types of ads to block would follow standards released in March by industry group Coalition for Better Ads. These include:

• Pop-ups
• Video ads with sound that play automatically
• Ads with countdown timers that appear before a user can see a site’s content

This dovetails with Pagefair’s finding that interruptive ads are one of the leading motivations for adblock program usage.

What is the current extent of ad-blocking?

PageFair’s 2017 report revealed the wide ranging use of adblocking technologies:

• 11% of Internet users worldwide block ads on the web
• 615 million devices around the world are blocking ads
  • 52 million devices in the US – 18% of internet users
  • 11 million devices in the UK – 16% of internet users
  • 12% of users in Central and Eastern Europe (including the UK)

Worldwide, use of adblockers on mobile devices (11%) has overtaken use on desktop (7%). However, mobile usage is still mostly limited to countries in Southeast Asia, while desktop usage is primarily in Western countries.

Adblocking software usage spans all ages (PageFair’s study looked at adults 18+, no children) though usage is higher among men than women.

Why is Google considering adding ad-blocking functionality?

It would seem counterintuitive for Google to offer the option to block ads on its browser; ads are Google’s main source of revenue, earning them over $60bn last year.

However, as indicated, Google is not planning to block everything; rather, according to the WSJ, it will ‘filter out certain online ad types deemed to provide bad experiences for users as they move around the web.’

Essentially, Google may be hoping that by improving the default experience on Chrome, users will abandon their third party blockers, providing a win-win for both the user and for Google. With a better experience, the user is more willing to view – and may be more likely to click – on the less intrusive ads they do see, ultimately increasing revenue to Google. Indeed, PageFair’s study found that 77% of adblock users would be open to viewing some ad formats.

Conclusion

While there has been no official announcement from Google regarding the addition of adblocking capabilities to the Chrome browser, the WSJ believes one could be made within weeks.

The full impact of adblocking on publishers and advertisers is difficult to predict, however the segments of (American) users most likely to use them are males and those with a bachelor’s degree (according to PageFair). Companies targeting these groups may currently be missing a wide swath of their potential market due to use of adblocking software.

If Google is planning something in this area, there is potential for advertisers to once again reach users who are currently blocking their ads. Either way, when thinking of how to target stakeholders, it is important to keep in mind that advertising is an important tool in the brand’s arsenal, but only if the ads are designed to be seen – and not blocked – by important market segments.

Proud to Sponsor the 2017 Sohn Conference in NYC

What do you get when you gather the world’s top investment professionals in a room for a joint cause? What event could be so acclaimed that it draws industry heavy hitters like Bill Ackman and David Einhorn as well as cultural icons like Michael J. Fox and NASCAR star Jeff Gordon?

The Sohn Investment Conference NYC is the only event for investment professionals that boasts a lineup this robust and  supports a cause as worthy as pediatric cancer research and treatment.

The NYC event took place yesterday in the prestigious halls of Lincoln Center. As in years past, Sohn NYC speakers moved markets in real time as they shared their much-anticipated investment ideas. The event was beautifully produced and was successful in raising millions of dollars to support innovative initiatives for curing and treating pediatric cancer.

Since 2014, Five Blocks has been a proud global sponsor of the Sohn Investment Conference in locations such as London, Hong Kong, Tel Aviv, and now New York City – for Next Wave Sohn as well as the main Sohn NYC event. We’ve been privileged to work alongside the amazing Sohn Conference Foundation team, providing digital services for the organization and its events worldwide. We look forward to continuing our support of Sohn and can’t wait to team up again next year.

2016 Sohn Conference in Hong Kong

Sam and I were thrilled to represent Five Blocks again as sponsors of the 2016 Sohn Conference in Hong Kong. From the quality of the speakers and press coverage to the smooth logistical execution, it was apparent that a dedicated team worked tirelessly to make the conference such a memorable event.

While the content and networking opportunities were vast, the real focus of the evening was to encourage philanthropic support for the important work of The Karen Leung Foundation in Hong Kong. See the Karen Leung Foundation’s website for more information about how they promote awareness, prevention, and optimal treatment of gynecological cancer for women in Hong Kong.

Five Blocks is proud to have provided digital marketing services for the Sohn Conference in support of such a great cause. We look forward to participating again in 2017.

Wikidata Meets the Google Knowledge Graph

Five Blocks’ Noam Shapiro, discusses the connections between Wikidata and the Knowledge Graph. Read more at Search Engine Journal.

Twitter Firehose is Open to Google… Again!

Executive Summary:

• On February 5^th 2015 Google and Twitter announced a renewed partnership enabling Google to utilize Twitter data.
• This is one of the biggest indicators that Google is serious about Real-Time search.
• More volatility is expected within search results as it begins reflecting the real world more correctly.
• Companies will be forced to interact through real-time social media such as Twitter.
• For companies whose search was fairly stable, this presents new risks.
• For companies willing to engage, this presents new opportunities.
• Companies need to claim ownership and begin minimum activity on Twitter to establish a presence.

Why is it Called “The Firehose”?

The recent partnership between Twitter and Google provides API access – what is commonly referred to as “access to the Twitter Firehose” – to Google. This is an attempt to bring more real-time data into the search giant, providing a seamless and timelier experience for the user.

When Google crawls a site, it “visits” each and every page, ordinarily requiring minimal effort. However, when this happens too often, the site’s servers become over-burdened. For example, if Google were to crawl Twitter’s 6,000 tweets a second and nearly 500 million tweets a day, Twitter would crash.

At this point, studies show that only 7% of all tweets get indexed within Google. The Firehose is a real-time feed designed to allow Google to absorb the vast quantity of data using an API.

History of the Relationship

This is not the first time we have seen this relationship between Google and Twitter.

• In October 2009, Google signed a deal with Twitter to utilize the data from the “firehose.”
• Two months later, Google revealed its “Real Time Search,” with another information box consolidating tweets into the organic results.
• After less than two years, in July 2011, Google and Twitter were unable to renew the terms of the deal. They parted ways and Google stopped showing real-time search as a result. At one point, among friction, Twitter entirely blocked Google’s bots from crawling the site, later explaining it was a mistake and unintentional.

The Real-Time Web is Growing as the Firehose Opens

In a world of fast moving technology, real-time data has become more important than ever, escalating the expectation of the average user.

• Google does an incredible job at indexing global data, but there is often a delay in how quickly it can unearth the latest news.
• Twitter on the other hand – better than any other platform – often breaks stories and is the source of real-time news consumption. Aside from that, Twitter could generally go unnoticed once mainstream media catches up.

What has become clear is that both platforms alone do not tell the full story online.  With this alliance, users will get real time updates into the most comprehensive source of information substantially increasing retrieval time.

Five Blocks’ Predictions

While it is still unclear how the relationship will ultimately materialize, there is some speculation based on some of the previous history:

Prediction 1

Google will NOT create a custom section in the results page for Tweets as they did last time. That being said, this doesn’t make it any less important, and could add a new layer of complexity and turbulence to search results.

Prediction 2

Hashtag result pages will become very influential. In November 2014, Twitter began building out more “SEO friendly” pages for their hashtags. Google will find a way to leverage this rich, timely, and trending content.

Prediction 3

Google will begin incorporating social metrics into search results, similar to the way Schema markup will work. Bing has recently rolled this out which indicates authority.

Preparing for all Eventualities

For brands willing to engage on social media, there is a tremendous opportunity to gain additional control during a real-time crisis situation.

While there are no certainties on the exact execution of this relationship, the need to be prepared is indisputable. When Google “flips the switch,” it will likely cause many immediate changes to search results, especially if timely information is being shared.

In order to be prepared, we recommend:

• Claim your Twitter handle – If you already own your brand’s name, great! If not, this could mean taking over an account that is currently owned by someone else.
• Optimize Images and Descriptions – Add your logo, include a nice description, background image and appropriate link back to the company website.
• Verify the account – In this process, brands and prominent individuals register with Twitter, authenticating their Twitter account ownership.
• Start Tweeting – Begin investing small amounts of time in Twitter and – at a minimum – automating tweets which include company news, press releases, statements, or other positive relatable content.
• Create an emergency response plan for when news begins to trend.

Conclusion

Time will tell how this relationship will evolve, but the most important thing is to have all assets in place. This is likely the beginning of Google integrating real-time content into search results and we can expect to see more social impact, markup, and social media as ranking signals and measure of influence.

For more information on Twitter and Google partnership, visit the resources below:

• Launch Announcement:
  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-05/twitter-said-to-reach-deal-for-tweets-in-google-search-results
• FAQ with Danny Sullivan:
  http://marketingland.com/twitter-google-search-deal-faq-117463
• Google Index Study:
  https://blogs.perficient.com/2015/02/10/how-does-google-index-tweets-today-how-the-new-twitter-deal-will-impact-seo/

For more information about Five Blocks, visit us at https://www.fiveblocks.com or contact Aaron Friedman at aaronf@fiveblocks.com or 847-877-85174 with any inquiries how we can help.