Google Instant Search: so hot my keyboard’s on fire…

1 Response

The release of Google Instant Search has created a fair amount of consternation and uproar. Its impact on brands and the search industry alike is still to be fully understood, but it certainly looks like it’s changing the game.

A search engine that tells you what you’re searching for even before you’ve finished typing would have sounded, even a few years ago, very much like science fiction, but it’s here, and all the indications are it’s here to stay. Google predicts that it saves an average of 2-5 seconds per search, claims it offers smarter predictions to help guide user searches, offers instant results without having to hit enter or click a button.

The Instant Search algorithm uses both geographical and personal data, so no two users will see exactly the same results.

We’ve already seen requests from clients who want to own the letter “A,” which is clearly not the answer, but there’s certainly a strong argument for looking at shorter search terms for SEO.  If you sell flowers, for example, wouldn’t optimising your site for the word “flow” give you a crucial seconds’ jump on your competition?

Well, no. According to Google, that’s “not a productive strategy”

But what’s they’re not mentioning is that buying those search terms very well might be – a quick test reveals that brands are already buying terms such as single letters, or, for example, the term “flig” as a keyword for airline brands.

The implications for pay per click revenue are enormous: Google has given itself the means of serving up possibly three times as many ads, although an impression is counted only after three seconds, which is what Google deems a “cognitive pause.”  Google suggests it shouldn’t make a difference, but also acknowledges that sites should expect to see a higher number of impressions as the URL is displayed more frequently during Instant Search – given click through rate has a direct impact on how a website is ranked, it’s hard to see how this can be true.

On the surface, it’s incredibly brand friendly. We already know Google loves big brands, the cynical view being, of course, that they spend the most money.

Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt shared Google’s concerted effort to favour big brands a couple of years ago, referring to the internet as a “cesspool” of bad information.  “Brands are how you sort out the cesspool,” he said.

We’re definitely seeing a boost in impressions for big brand sites with high page rank, which makes it much more difficult in terms of traditional SEO for lesser known brands and businesses. Without an increased focus on ad spend and a more sophisticated content and keyword strategy, it’s going to be considerably harder for smaller businesses and brands to compete.

It does seem, however, that all large brands are not created equal in Google’s eyes: a search for “je” got me to Jet Star straight away, while I had the weary task of typing all of “virgin b” before I got to Virgin Blue. Given I’ve searched for and bought flights in the last week, which has meant visiting both of these sites, it looks as though personalisation is one of the less important factors.

In terms of ad serving, it’s currently prioritising local results: Instant

Vs Instant Off:

Something to bear in mind is that while Google continues to hold the lion’s share of the search market, Google Instant Search isn’t accessible to everyone. Once you rule out users not using compatible browsers, users without Gmail accounts and users not signed into their accounts (, we’re only talking about a relatively small percentage of the online population. Much like discussions of social media, the discussion is coming from the vocal few rather than the silent majority – 10,000 blog posts and counting give a skewed view of quite how widely used Instant Search is.

It’s also less relevant if you don’t touch type; if you have your head down squinting at the keyboard tapping away with two fingers, most of the results being served are simply going to pass you by.

Where this is really going to make the difference is mobile search where you remain signed in, although search optimisation and user behaviour for mobile is already a very different practice from desk-based search.

Google Instant Search is not only SFW, it’s safe for church. Interestingly, Instant Search currently screens all content it deems to be potentially adult or risky. A search for “nudes” returned no results. AdAge journalist Irina Slutsky has been complaining that she’s become invisible of late, as Instant Search is suddenly silenced when Googling her:

Ordinary search now feels maddeningly slow in comparison; switching it off to run tests, I found myself virtually tapping my foot impatiently while waiting for results to load, and I’m not certain this pre-emptive gratification is at all healthy.  What will you do with those two spare seconds?

It’s early days, and it will be interesting to see what tweaks and refinements are made. I’d imagine it will make the lower half of the page increasingly irrelevant, which means potentially the social search function may be affected as users stick even more closely to the top few results, perhaps refining the search term on the fly. It will reinforce the (now traditional) model: the first results get the most click throughs.

Ultimately, the way to win the search war remains the same: continue to give users a reason to visit your site by giving them amazing, useful, relevant content and you will continue to succeed.

As to whether a search engine should be trying to subtly shift our behaviour by predicting our intentions, I think there’s a larger debate to be had. I didn’t know, so I googled it…