GroupM: What Bad Business and the Big Business of Google Say About the Future of Your Business - Chris Copeland - MediaBizBloggers

The verdict came swiftly. A public trial created by the media was settled with a single blog entry. A decision rendered that may have far-reaching impact for businesses everywhere, and a new reality furthered that the fate of business will be determined in no small part by the court – the court of public opinion that is.

On Nov 26, the New York Times ran a story by David Segal about DecorMyEyes and the questionable business practices of its founder and owner, Vitaly Borker. The story detailed how Mr. Borker was able to benefit through improved positioning on Google and other search engines from largely negative reviews of his business and its practices. As part of the story, the apparent inability of a search engine, specifically Google, to differentiate between positive commentary and negative reviews was highlighted. For a brief time the NYT had brought forward an obvious gap in the "Do No Evil" king's prized algorithm – the inability to weight based on good and bad versus simply crediting for scale of commentary and links.

At any given time Google has hundreds of ranking factors at work to determine the best blend of results for a user. The basis for search engine optimization (SEO) was built more than a decade ago by aspiring companies focusing on on-page factors such as keyword density and behind-page tags, as well as off-page association via linking. The evolution of the algo has been vast with Yandex claiming to index 2,000 different criteria earlier this Fall. With so many more criteria, it is safe to say that Google and others have been indexing the opinions of the people, but like the determination of what to do with tweets and other new content types, the application of such been the delay to market.

It seems that the exposure in the NYT did not go unnoticed in Mountain View. Within days Google posted its response, making it clear that they continue to place utmost value on the type of experience they connect users with and have weighted it so in their algo. Of note was this piece on the official Google Blog:

"In the last few days we developed an algorithmic solution which detects the merchant from the Times article along with hundreds of other merchants that, in our opinion, provide an extremely poor user experience. The algorithm we incorporated into our search rankings represents an initial solution to this issue, and Google users are now getting a better experience as a result."

Google also pointed out that they were less inclined to start weighing in on penalizing sites for negative comments because in some cases the court of public opinion against certain elected officials might mean an inability to find data whatsoever. As such there is no sentiment engine in the search algo today. Which raises the question of which signal in the Google ranking pool is being used? Search Engine Land editor-in-chief Danny Sullivan, in reading between the lines of the Google post, said that it "seems likely that Google is now using these (merchant) reviews as part of its ranking algorithm, though it never explicitly says this."

And in this we reach the point of the proceedings where brands on trial must act. In any court proceeding, whether legal or that of public opinion, there comes a phase of discovery. Both sides have the opportunity to present and review the evidence at hand that will be woven into the case for or against their side. In the case of search we are now seeing more and more examples where consumers are not only reviewing the materials but creating the content that will be used to judge a brand.

Brands are on a roller coaster ride from feeling in control to being told to let go, to now seeing the perceptions of their customers shaping the outcome of future transactions. What happens next is where brands have a real opportunity to shape and influence public opinion. Whether it is the most recent Google change or the Bing and Facebook announcement, there is growing importance for brands to connect at a deep level with consumers. This goes beyond "like" and "friend" and extends to commitment to products and experiences with the brand.

On almost every receipt a customer receives in a department store or restaurant there is a phone survey attached designed to reward for feedback. These surveys serve a valuable purpose in the feedback loop, but they are no longer adequate in addressing the meaningful way consumers give feedback to other potential customers inside and out of their social graph. The new model for feedback has to be tied to immediate response, appropriate reward for doing so and facilitated in a method that can benefit the brand. Be it in store kiosks or on-table iPad surveys, there is a new model needed.

The intersection of intent and content in a relevant manner remains at the core of the search experience, and Google is attempting to ensure that it is done in a way that brings to valuable partners together. For brands this is a challenge – and opportunity – at one time. In America, anyone put on trial is guaranteed a proper defense. For brands in today's digital age the criteria by which you will be judged is constantly shifting. To ensure a positive verdict, the time to evolve is now.

Chris Copeland is CEO of GroupM Search for the Americas. Chris can be reached at chris.copeland@groupm. You can also follow Chris on Twitter @SearchBoss.

Read all Chris' MediaBizBloggers commentaries at Musings from GroupM.

Check us out on Facebook at MediaBizBloggers.com
Follow our Twitter updates @MediaBizBlogger