Connect with us

SEO

Former Google CEO Describes ‘Brutal’ Review Process For New Projects

Published

on

Former Google CEO Describes ‘Brutal’ Review Process For New Projects

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt shares details about the “brutal” review process employees had to go through when pitching ideas for new products.

During a Q&A session at the Collision conference in Toronto, Schmidt was asked about his approach to forecasting futures and whether he uses a bottom-up or top-down approach.

Collision is a conference geared toward startups and investors, so the questions asked were all within that realm.

One question prompted Schmidt to drop some interesting tidbits about Google and what it took for employees to get their ideas off the ground while he was CEO.

Google popularized offering time to work on side projects as an employee benefit — known as the 20% Project. Several of those projects became top products like Gmail, AdSense, and Google News.

Advertisement

Schmidt revealed his approach to managing the 20% Project and how it differed from how he explained it while working for Google.

Schmidt On Google’s 20% Project

Responding to the question about forecasting, Schmidt spoke about the approach he and co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin took during his time at Google.

Publicly, Schmidt always stated Google took a bottom-up approach to managing the 20% project. Meaning it was a collaborative effort in deciding what steps to take with new product ideas.

However, Schmidt says at Collision that company leaders were more involved than previously stated.

It wasn’t a team decision that allowed projects to advance to the next level. The decision was determined through a “brutal” review process from management.

Advertisement

“When I was running Google, I would always explain how we did it. It was completely bottoms up. You had 20% time where teams could assemble, and people could follow their passion. These were brilliant people, the highest talent.

I would not tell you the rest of the story — and the rest is that Larry [Page], Sergey [Brin], and I would review these things, and these reviews were brutal.

Are these ideas good enough?
Can we fund them?
Are they going to work?
Are they going to scale?
Are they legal?

To build a systemic innovation culture, which is what I think we’re talking about here, you need to have both bottoms up and tops down.”

Schmidt explains the benefits of combining bottoms up and tops down decision-making, saying both are needed to succeed in the next 10-20 years.

“The bottoms-up is where the creative ideas come from, and the top-down organizaes and systematizes the decision-making. If you do both, you will win big in the next 10-20 years.

If you do a bit of it, you’ll do OK. You’ll be ‘one of’ the companies. The great companies can invent something and then systematize it, and then regularize it, and then scale it.”

Employee Criticism Of 20% Project

Schmidt’s statement at Collision is in line with what Google employees said about the project in the past.

Advertisement

In 2010, a Google employee published a thread on Quora saying the project was “ineffective” due to the multiple levels of approval needed to launch anything.

“There is a colossal amount of overhead involved in launching anything. The number of approvals (both technical and product) needed for the smallest of launches is overwhelming. For example, you’ll need to have your service live in multiple data centers from day one, because Google has extremely frequent planned maintenance. There are some tools to help you, but you’ve got to do a ton of leg work.”

More About Google’s 20% Project

Google’s 20% Project was in place before the company went public in 2004 and was discontinued in 2013.

A former Google employee blamed the death of the 20% policy on how it was run by management, citing an obsession with efficiency and productivity. Again, that lines up with Schmidt’s statement at Collision.

In 2016, Google revived its concept of 20% project time in the form of the Area 120 incubator. Though it spawned over 50 projects, none reached the same level of success as Gmail and AdSense.

In late 2021, Google reorganized Area 120 under a new division called Google Labs, which houses Google’s AR & VR initiatives as well.

 

Advertisement



Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

SEO

Google’s Search Engine Market Share Drops As Competitors’ Grows

Published

on

By

Assorted search engine apps including Google, You.com and Bing are seen on an iPhone. Microsoft plans to use ChatGPT in Bing, and You.com has launched an AI chatbot.

According to data from GS Statcounter, Google’s search engine market share has fallen to 86.99%, the lowest point since the firm began tracking search engine share in 2009.

The drop represents a more than 4% decrease from the previous month, marking the largest single-month decline on record.

Screenshot from: https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/, May 2024.

U.S. Market Impact

The decline is most significant in Google’s key market, the United States, where its share of searches across all devices fell by nearly 10%, reaching 77.52%.

1714669058 226 Googles Search Engine Market Share Drops As Competitors GrowsScreenshot from: https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/, May 2024.

Concurrently, competitors Microsoft Bing and Yahoo Search have seen gains. Bing reached a 13% market share in the U.S. and 5.8% globally, its highest since launching in 2009.

Yahoo Search’s worldwide share nearly tripled to 3.06%, a level not seen since July 2015.

1714669058 375 Googles Search Engine Market Share Drops As Competitors GrowsScreenshot from: https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/, May 2024.

Search Quality Concerns

Many industry experts have recently expressed concerns about the declining quality of Google’s search results.

A portion of the SEO community believes that the search giant’s results have worsened following the latest update.

Advertisement

These concerns have begun to extend to average internet users, who are increasingly voicing complaints about the state of their search results.

Alternative Perspectives

Web analytics platform SimilarWeb provided additional context on X (formerly Twitter), stating that its data for the US for March 2024 suggests Google’s decline may not be as severe as initially reported.

SimilarWeb also highlighted Yahoo’s strong performance, categorizing it as a News and Media platform rather than a direct competitor to Google in the Search Engine category.

Why It Matters

The shifting search engine market trends can impact businesses, marketers, and regular users.

Google has been on top for a long time, shaping how we find things online and how users behave.

However, as its market share drops and other search engines gain popularity, publishers may need to rethink their online strategies and optimize for multiple search platforms besides Google.

Users are becoming vocal about Google’s declining search quality over time. As people start trying alternate search engines, the various platforms must prioritize keeping users satisfied if they want to maintain or grow their market position.

It will be interesting to see how they respond to this boost in market share.

What It Means for SEO Pros

As Google’s competitors gain ground, SEO strategies may need to adapt by accounting for how each search engine’s algorithms and ranking factors work.

Advertisement

This could involve diversifying SEO efforts across multiple platforms and staying up-to-date on best practices for each one.

The increased focus on high-quality search results emphasizes the need to create valuable, user-focused content that meets the needs of the target audience.

SEO pros must prioritize informative, engaging, trustworthy content that meets search engine algorithms and user expectations.

Remain flexible, adaptable, and proactive to navigate these shifts. Keeping a pulse on industry trends, user behaviors, and competing search engine strategies will be key for successful SEO campaigns.


Featured Image: Tada Images/Shutterstock



Source link

Advertisement
Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SEO

How To Drive Pipeline With A Silo-Free Strategy

Published

on

By

How To Drive Pipeline With A Silo-Free Strategy

When it comes to B2B strategy, a holistic approach is the only approach. 

Revenue organizations usually operate with siloed teams, and often expect a one-size-fits-all solution (usually buying clicks with paid media). 

However, without cohesive brand, infrastructure, and pipeline generation efforts, they’re pretty much doomed to fail. 

It’s just like rowing crew, where each member of the team must synchronize their movements to propel the boat forward – successful B2B marketing requires an integrated strategy. 

So if you’re ready to ditch your disjointed marketing efforts and try a holistic approach, we’ve got you covered.

Advertisement

Join us on May 15, for an insightful live session with Digital Reach Agency on how to craft a compelling brand and PMF. 

We’ll walk through the critical infrastructure you need, and the reliances and dependences of the core digital marketing disciplines.

Key takeaways from this webinar:

  • Thinking Beyond Traditional Silos: Learn why traditional marketing silos are no longer viable and how they spell doom for modern revenue organizations.
  • How To Identify and Fix Silos: Discover actionable strategies for pinpointing and sealing the gaps in your marketing silos. 
  • The Power of Integration: Uncover the secrets to successfully integrating brand strategy, digital infrastructure, and pipeline generation efforts.

Ben Childs, President and Founder of Digital Reach Agency, and Jordan Gibson, Head of Growth at Digital Reach Agency, will show you how to seamlessly integrate various elements of your marketing strategy for optimal results.

Don’t make the common mistake of using traditional marketing silos – sign up now and learn what it takes to transform your B2B go-to-market.

You’ll also get the opportunity to ask Ben and Jordan your most pressing questions, following the presentation.

And if you can’t make it to the live event, register anyway and we’ll send you a recording shortly after the webinar. 

Advertisement

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SEO

Why Big Companies Make Bad Content

Published

on

Why Big Companies Make Bad Content

It’s like death and taxes: inevitable. The bigger a company gets, the worse its content marketing becomes.

HubSpot teaching you how to type the shrug emoji or buy bitcoin stock. Salesforce sharing inspiring business quotes. GoDaddy helping you use Bing AI, or Zendesk sharing catchy sales slogans.

Judged by content marketing best practice, these articles are bad.

They won’t resonate with decision-makers. Nobody will buy a HubSpot license after Googling “how to buy bitcoin stock.” It’s the very definition of vanity traffic: tons of visits with no obvious impact on the business.

So why does this happen?

Advertisement
I did a double-take the first time I discovered this article on the HubSpot blog.

There’s an obvious (but flawed) answer to this question: big companies are inefficient.

As companies grow, they become more complicated, and writing good, relevant content becomes harder. I’ve experienced this firsthand:

  • extra rounds of legal review and stakeholder approval creeping into processes.
  • content watered down to serve an ever-more generic “brand voice”.
  • growing misalignment between search and content teams.
  • a lack of content leadership within the company as early employees leave.
Why Big Companies Make Bad ContentWhy Big Companies Make Bad Content
As companies grow, content workflows can get kinda… complicated.

Similarly, funded companies have to grow, even when they’re already huge. Content has to feed the machine, continually increasing traffic… even if that traffic never contributes to the bottom line.

There’s an element of truth here, but I’ve come to think that both these arguments are naive, and certainly not the whole story.

It is wrong to assume that the same people that grew the company suddenly forgot everything they once knew about content, and wrong to assume that companies willfully target useless keywords just to game their OKRs.

Instead, let’s assume that this strategy is deliberate, and not oversight. I think bad content—and the vanity traffic it generates—is actually good for business.

Advertisement

There are benefits to driving tons of traffic, even if that traffic never directly converts. Or put in meme format:

Why Big Companies Make Bad ContentWhy Big Companies Make Bad Content

Programmatic SEO is a good example. Why does Dialpad create landing pages for local phone numbers?

1714584366 91 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content1714584366 91 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content

Why does Wise target exchange rate keywords?

1714584366 253 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content1714584366 253 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content

Why do we have a list of most popular websites pages?

1714584367 988 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content1714584367 988 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content

As this Twitter user points out, these articles will never convert…

…but they don’t need to.

Every published URL and targeted keyword is a new doorway from the backwaters of the internet into your website. It’s a chance to acquire backlinks that wouldn’t otherwise exist, and an opportunity to get your brand in front of thousands of new, otherwise unfamiliar people.

These benefits might not directly translate into revenue, but over time, in aggregate, they can have a huge indirect impact on revenue. They can:

Advertisement
  • Strengthen domain authority and the search performance of every other page on the website.
  • Boost brand awareness, and encourage serendipitous interactions that land your brand in front of the right person at the right time.
  • Deny your competitors traffic and dilute their share of voice.

These small benefits become more worthwhile when multiplied across many hundreds or thousands of pages. If you can minimize the cost of the content, there is relatively little downside.

What about topical authority?

“But what about topical authority?!” I hear you cry. “If you stray too far from your area of expertise, won’t rankings suffer for it?”

I reply simply with this screenshot of Forbes’ “health” subfolder, generating almost 4 million estimated monthly organic pageviews:

1714584367 695 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content1714584367 695 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content

And big companies can minimize cost. For large, established brands, the marginal cost of content creation is relatively low.

Many companies scale their output through networks of freelancer writers, avoiding the cost of fully loaded employees. They have established, efficient processes for research, briefing, editorial review, publication and maintenance. The cost of an additional “unit” of content—or ten, or a hundred—is not that great, especially relative to other marketing channels.

There is also relatively little opportunity cost to consider: the fact that energy spent on “vanity” traffic could be better spent elsewhere, on more business-relevant topics.

Advertisement

In reality, many of the companies engaging in this strategy have already plucked the low-hanging fruit and written almost every product-relevant topic. There are a finite number of high traffic, high relevance topics; blog consistently for a decade and you too will reach these limits.

On top of that, the HubSpots and Salesforces of the world have very established, very efficient sales processes. Content gating, lead capture and scoring, and retargeting allow them to put very small conversion rates to relatively good use.

1714584367 376 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content1714584367 376 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content

Even HubSpot’s article on Bitcoin stock has its own relevant call-to-action—and for HubSpot, building a database of aspiring investors is more valuable than it sounds, because…

The bigger a company grows, the bigger its audience needs to be to continue sustaining that growth rate.

Companies generally expand their total addressable market (TAM) as they grow, like HubSpot broadening from marketing to sales and customer success, launching new product lines for new—much bigger—audiences. This means the target audience for their content marketing grows alongside.

As Peep Laja put its:

Advertisement

But for the biggest companies, this principle is taken to an extreme. When a company gears up to IPO, its target audience expands to… pretty much everyone.

This was something Janessa Lantz (ex-HubSpot and dbt Labs) helped me understand: the target audience for a post-IPO company is not just end users, but institutional investors, market analysts, journalists, even regular Jane investors.

These are people who can influence the company’s worth in ways beyond simply buying a subscription: they can invest or encourage others to invest and dramatically influence the share price. These people are influenced by billboards, OOH advertising and, you guessed it, seemingly “bad” content showing up whenever they Google something.

Advertisement

You can think of this as a second, additional marketing funnel for post-IPO companies:

Illustration: When companies IPO, the traditional marketing funnel is accompanied by a second funnel. Website visitors contribute value through stock appreciation, not just revenue.Illustration: When companies IPO, the traditional marketing funnel is accompanied by a second funnel. Website visitors contribute value through stock appreciation, not just revenue.

These visitors might not purchase a software subscription when they see your article in the SERP, but they will notice your brand, and maybe listen more attentively the next time your stock ticker appears on the news.

They won’t become power users, but they might download your eBook and add an extra unit to the email subscribers reported in your S1.

They might not contribute revenue now, but they will in the future: in the form of stock appreciation, or becoming the target audience for a future product line.

Vanity traffic does create value, but in a form most content marketers are not used to measuring.

If any of these benefits apply, then it makes sense to acquire them for your company—but also to deny them to your competitors.

Advertisement

SEO is an arms race: there are a finite number of keywords and topics, and leaving a rival to claim hundreds, even thousands of SERPs uncontested could very quickly create a headache for your company.

SEO can quickly create a moat of backlinks and brand awareness that can be virtually impossible to challenge; left unchecked, the gap between your company and your rival can accelerate at an accelerating pace.

Pumping out “bad” content and chasing vanity traffic is a chance to deny your rivals unchallenged share of voice, and make sure your brand always has a seat at the table.

Final thoughts

These types of articles are miscategorized—instead of thinking of them as bad content, it’s better to think of them as cheap digital billboards with surprisingly great attribution.

Big companies chasing “vanity traffic” isn’t an accident or oversight—there are good reasons to invest energy into content that will never convert. There is benefit, just not in the format most content marketers are used to.

This is not an argument to suggest that every company should invest in hyper-broad, high-traffic keywords. But if you’ve been blogging for a decade, or you’re gearing up for an IPO, then “bad content” and the vanity traffic it creates might not be so bad.

Advertisement



Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

Trending

Follow by Email
RSS