Business Case and Strategy for
Executing Mobile SEO Programs in
Large Advertisers
Is 2012 the year when mobile hits the big time in the US and most key advertising
markets? For search advertisers—mobile advertising, both organic and
paid—has been “next year’s opportunity” for years. Investment continues to
be muted, limited to web development projects—where SEO considerations
are often secondary to creating basic functionality. On paid search, Covario
sees that mobile represents less than 5% of overall all paid search advertising
spend. However, with Google’s recent decision to buy Motorola, the interaction
of mobile technology and advertising is being integrated and solidified.
We have no intention of “timing” the mobile market. However, no one disputes the basic premise—that mobile search advertising is coming and that it will be the main process by which digital advertising is served in ten years. The only question is whether the tipping point will be in one year, three years, five years, or ten years. We define the tipping point as when paid advertising on mobile devices tops 25% of a particular channel (display, paid search, or paid social media) or when SEO becomes a necessary part of web design because more than 25% of organic search related traffic comes from mobile devices. When this happens, mobile moves from being avant-garde to de rigueur—no longer an option!
Research suggests that it will be sooner. Google did a study published in April called The Mobile Movement. It showed that 77% of mobile users use their mobile device to conduct searches.
The issue is not whether search is a key part of mobile usage. It is a matter of raw volume of web sessions being conducted on mobile devices. There are not many great studies on this in the market. Forrester Research did the following study showing that mobile Internet usage will increase from 20% of all Internet sessions to 30% in 2015.
Source: Forrester Research
Cisco recently did a study showing that mobile IP queries are increasing at 3X the rate of all Internet IP queries.
Both studies conclude that mobile is growing far more quickly than desktop, and that the expectation is at least 30% of Internet queries will be on mobile devices by 2015. Our projection is that the search-related traffic volume will be higher since search is one of the dominant activities that take place on mobile.
And, mobile continues to be top of mind for search advertisers. In a recent webinar Covario sponsored, we conducted a survey. Of the participants, 43% of the respondents indicated that “the rise of mobile search” is the most important issue facing search marketers in 2012.
Source: Covario, Inc.
What does that mean to search advertising—specifically organic search on mobile devices? Can the best practices that advertisers have developed to optimize for SEO on desktop translate to mobile? That is what we attempt to answer in the next section.
Are Results On Mobile Search Different from Desktop Search?
We offer a simple hypothesis: If the organic search results for a list of keywords is identical on desktop and mobile devices, then there is no need for SEO managers to change tactics for SEO to ensure that their brands show up on mobile search. Obviously, if the results are the same, then there is no difference in the algorithms used by the search engines for ranking on mobile/tablets versus desktop. So we set out to prove/disprove this hypothesis. We looked at 25 keywords and conducted searches on Google mobile and Google desktop and compared the ranking results. This was done in August 2011, in the US only, and using top 10 results. Using Google Desktop as the baseline, here is what we found:
• Visually, the results pages for Google Desktop and Google Mobile are different. They both offer standard organic search results, as well as Places results. However, formatting and spacing are different.
• Tag following table shows the differences in the results.
o Only two organic listings come up on mobile devices (instead of three) before the “Places” results show up. o The Places results differ significantly for mobile devices versus desktop – they are the most localized. o Smartphone and Tablet results are nearly identical – but they are different from desktop.
Desktop Smart Phone Through iPhone, Android or Black-Berry OS v6.0+ Feature Phone
Mototola RAZR Tablet Location Map Yes (wide area view) Yes (narrow area
view)
No Yes (narrow area
view)
Organic 1 store.apple.com store.apple.com store.apple.com store.apple.com Organic 2 www.apple.com www.apple.com www.apple.com www.apple.com
Organic 3 www.walmart.com NA NA NA
Places 7 mixed listings with ratings and reviews and location finder • Century 21 • Nintendo Store • Yellow Rat B*stand • Uniglo
• J&R Music • M&M World • H&M
7 mixed listings with ratings and reviews and location finder • Disney Store • M&M World • Toys R Us • Nintendo Store •Sam Ash Music • American Eagle
Outfitter • MTV
3 mixed listings (with ratings and reviews and phone number) • Disney Store • M&M World • Toys R Us
7 mixed listings with ratings and reviews and location finder • Disney Store • M&M World • Toys R Us • Nintendo Store •Sam Ash Music • American Eagle
Outfitter • MTV Organic 4 www.nyandcompany.
com
www.walmart.com www.walmart.com www.walmart.com
The following show examples of the specific pages and how they render:
Desktop Results Through Internet Explorer 8 Smartphone Results Through iPhone, Android Device or BlackBerry with OS6 or Greater
Feature Phone Results for Motorola RAZR or BlackBerry with Pre OS6
Tablet Results (iPad or Android 3.1 Tablets)
In a more generalized sense, for the top 25 “non-localized” terms, we saw the following difference in rankings. • 42% of the terms have the same ranking on Google Mobile as Google Desktop.
• 37% of the rankings are lower (negative). • 21% are higher.
Source: Covario, Inc.
Distribution of Ranking Difference for Desktop versus Mobile for Generic Terms on Google
45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 0.4% 1.3% 0.4% 5.4% 2.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.9% 0.4% 1.3% 2.2% 0.4% 0.9% 3.6% 4.0% 17.5% 41.7% 2.2% 5.8% 8.1% 0.4%
On average the rankings differ by 3.4 positions allowing us to reject our hypothesis—mobile ranking results are different significantly from desktop results. This means that the algorithms for mobile SEO are different and therefore advertisers must change tactics for desktop sites in order to rank as well or better on mobile search as they do on desktop. We used intentionally generic terms (Refer to Appendix 1 for full list). This begged a second hypothesis. Do mobile devices and mobile organic search algorithms adjust ranking results based on increase localization requirements, or are they the result of fundamental differences in the algorithms based on linking and content rules? To determine this, we also looked at the ranking results of 25 keywords that obviously are localized keywords (Refer to Appendix 2 for list).
Only 27% of the ranking on localized terms are the same on Google mobile as on Google desktop. This is a difference of nearly 15% between the localized and non-localized results. So Google is very sensitive to location of query—more so on mobile than on desktop. Interestingly, 37% of the ranking distribution was higher and 37% was lower.
Source: Covario, Inc.
Again, the importance of this is that our hypothesis is proven—mobile search reacts to localization strongly compared to desktop. So the algorithms react to localization, as well as to other factors. The next section will discuss those different factors.
SEO for Mobile – How It Differs from Desktop
It is established that mobile search algorithms work differently than desktop and that the results pages have different format. So what do advertisers have to do in order to ensure their processes for managing mobile SEO address these differences? There are number of key activities that need to be executed in order to extend existing optimization processes to mobile devices:
Distribution of Ranking Difference for Desktop versus Mobile for Localized Terms on Google
30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 0.5% 1.4% 3.3% 1.4% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9%0.5% 0.5%0.0% 0.5% 1.9% 1.4% 4.7% 7.0% 7.0% 10.7% 26.5% 7.4% 11.6% 8.4% 3.7%
• Include the website in Google Places. Google Places listings often get priority on mobile over organic listings as shown above. Mobile devices are more sensitive to localization and Google Places is a signal used by the search engine to manage this more effectively.
• On a technical level, the domain structure is a key issue. The content systems used to serve web pages must be able to detect user agents, so the crawlers coming from search engines can determine web pages for mobile versus desktop. Google uses two different “Google-Bots” for desktop and mobile devices—this is why it is important to know what page to serve to each bot.
• If the CMS system detects the user agents, then advertisers are best served using the same URLs and provide a one-to-one relationship of desktop pages with a corresponding mobile version. This way the Google-Desktop-Bot goes to the corresponding desktop page, and for the Google-Mobile-Bot, which goes to the same URL, and with the mobile rendering enabled. This means the same url structures can be used.
• Advertisers should only redirect to a mobile sub-domain if there is a specific subset of pages that are going to be used for rendering on mobile search.
The main intention of mobile search is driving location and immediacy, so micro-formats (which delineate all the code on the page precisely for the Google-Mobile-Bot and call out these location based factors) ensure the location-based data is identified by the bots. Also, given the increasing prominence of ratings and reviews (and rich snippets) in Google’s presentation of mobile results in more contemporary formats, micro-formats need be used to show the search-bots the appropriate information to present as part of its formatting.
If technical issues are managed, then the difference in ranking comes down to optimization around linking and keyword usage. Desktop pages—which sometimes do not render well on mobile devices—end up rank well often. They have the most link equity, so they tend to be more dominant. But that does not mean a great user experience unless the pages have been crafted for the mobile device and use case. That is why using a single URL structure is so key to mobile. It is the best way to serve the most powerful page—for desktop or mobile—ensuring that the desktop page is always out-ranked by the mobile page, and ensuring the best user experience.
The other issue—content, is also important. The use case for how searchers use mobile devices is different. It is clear that mobile users conduct different types of queries on mobile devices than on desktop and that the search engines treat the content slightly differently. The following chart shows the difference in average keyword length for organic mobile vs. desktop searches (from Covario Organic Search Optimizer™ in August 2012). For mobile devices, 52% of the search phrases are less than three words in length, compared to 38% for desktop. So queries on mobile are shorter meaning and the keyword lists for optimization are also therefore different.
Source: Covario, Inc.
Number of Keywords Per Search Phrase
35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 +
Note, search engine deploy different filtering of on-page content for feature phones versus desktop, tablet and smartphones. Why? Feature phones have lower operating system capacity, so if a “feature phone” friendly page is not recognized and read by a search-bot, then it may not be properly read for the search results on a feature phone or may be overlooked entirely. Smartphones and tablets essentially leverage the same pages as desktop as they are able to render the same content.
There are additional issues that advertisers should address for user experience purposes. Pages need to be scroll-friendly and touch-scroll-friendly. There are still web sites that do not support this.
Why Pay Attention to Google Mobile?
We focused on Google in this section. Why? Google Search is dominating mobile search at this time. The following table from StatCounter shows that Google Search accounts for nearly 95% of all mobile searches in the US in 2011. Bing and Yahoo account for less than 5%.
Source: StatCounter
We recommend that search marketers focus on Google Mobile in the short term. With Google purchasing Motorola, the landscape may change. Motorola competitors (Apple, RIM, Samsung) may find it more effective to change paid search providers.
Source: Piper Jaffray
• Apple could develop its own search process and not use Google as the default on the iPhone and iPad. Though unlikely, this would potentially tip the balance of operating systems with unique search capability for 20-30% of the market. It is unlikely that Apple would provide Bing as a default, given its rivalry with Microsoft, but the Motorola deal may change that.
• And RIM could flip 10-15% of the market to Bing given its market share in operating systems.
For SEO managers, this means that the need to understand differences in Bing and Google for SEO may be necessary, but focusing on Google in the short term is not a bad strategy.
Moving Forward
As stated, mobile is coming. It is now just a matter of when and whether this need be a top priority for 2012. There is no downside to making it so, given the trends in the market. Mobile traffic is growing at 3X the rate of desktop (Morgan Stanley report, 2011), though it continues to represent less than 5% of overall traffic to web sites for Covario clients. The growth rate is accelerating however, based mainly on the growth in traffic from tablets and increasingly sophisticated mobile devices and operating systems (BlackBerry, Samsung Galaxy, Apple iPhone, etc).
Getting good at mobile SEO does require investment! The results of mobile organic search are significantly different from desktop—particularly for local keywords. The tactics for SEO have to be updated to excel at mobile, or advertisers can expect that ~60-70% of their rankings will be lower. This means building augmented processes for content development, linking strategy and technical issues (see Appendix 3 for checklist). Also, usability factors are quite different, as are the keyword lists (shorter) and use cases (localized).
Mobile Platform Market Share Assuming Android Stays “Open”. Motorola Acquisition Does Not Impact 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Android iPhone BlackBerry Symbian Other Android iPhone BlackBerry Symbian Other 2010 21.3% 15.9% 16.0% 33.9% 3.9% 2015E 50.0% 26.0% 5.0% 0.0% 19.0% 2011E 39.0% 18.9% 12.4% 17.2% 12.4% 2012E 43.0% 20.2% 10.1% 12.3% 14.4% 2013E 45.0% 22.5% 9.0% 7.0% 16.5% 2014E 47.0% 25.0% 7.0% 3.0% 18.0%
3611 Valley Centre Drive, Ste 500, San Diego, CA 92130 • 858.397.1500 | covario.com ©2011 Covario, Inc. All rights reserved. Covario and the Covario logo are trademarks of Covario, Inc.
APPENDIX 1
List of Generic Terms Used to Evaluate Non-Localized SEO Results for Google Desktop versus Google Mobile Ranking. 1. Laptop 2. Laptops 3. Computer 4. Computers 5. Desktop 6. Server 7. Servers 8. Blade Server 9. Blade Servers 10. Cloud Computing 11. Smartphone 12. Smartphones 13. Android 14. Google 15. Samsung 16. iPhone 17. iPad 18. Apple 19. BlackBerry 20. RIM 21. Windows Phone 7 22. Microsoft 23. Windows 24. Nokia 25. News
APPENDIX 2
List of Generic Terms Used to Evaluate Localized SEO Results for Google Desktop versus Google Mobile Ranking. 1. Pizza 2. Gas 3. Airport 4. Food 5. Restaurant 6. Restaurant 7. Store 8. Stores 9. Walmart 10. Target 11. Mall 12. Clothes 13. School 14. College 15. University 16. Zoo 17. Hospital 18. Police 19. DMV 20. Phone 21. T-Mobile 22. AT&T 23. Verizon 24. Sprint 25. Insurance
APPENDIX 3
Mobile SEO checklist.
1. Google Places page for each “brick & mortar” business location.
2. Mobile User Agent detection segmented by feature phone, smartphone & tablet. 3. Site strategy for feature phone, smartphone & tablet rendering.
4. Have a page for each business location & properly optimized for mobile. 5. Smartphone & tablet specific rendering on the same desktop URL. 6. Feature phone rendering on an m. subdomain or /mobile subdirectory. 7. Declare the correct mobile DocType for each feature phone URL.
8. Use of microformats to better delineate the correct address & phone number for each business location. 9. Mobile XML sitemap & its submission to search engines for feature phone URLs.
