Google Instant Proves Chinese Wall is a Myth
Search Engine Optimisation

Google Instant Proves Chinese Wall is a Myth

9th September 2010

Editorial: This is a guestpost written by Dixon Jones of Receptional.

Google is rolling out “Google Instant” – where suggested results are returned as users type. In doing so, they inadvertently debunked their long and heavily pushed mantra that the paid results and the organic results are not linked. Infact, this move – whilst probably doing all the good they say – will cost advertisers more and will line Google’s pockets.

I should explain. You can see in the image, that not only do the organic results change as you type, but so do the PAID results. This in itself  demonstrates that the paid search team and the organic search team must have colluded heavily to be able to launch instant on both sides at once, but there’s more. Organic search is now fundamentally going to affect the paid results, because several well known SEO people say that  instant search will shorten the long tail as users start looking for shorter ways to get their results. This from @oilman:

Time will tell, but I am inclined to agree. That means that as users we will start to be retrained to do shorter searches to reach our results. This will increase the short tail (short keyword strings) and by definition, reduce the long tail searches (long keyword strings). This means that on the paid side, the competition for the shorter keyword strings will increase, pushing up the money Google can generate from these searches.

Our own keyword research shows that the big keywords cost FAR more to rank than the non-competitive long tail, both in paid search and organic. Google makes far more money out of advertisers if they increase competition on the money terms – even fractionally.

This is a guestpost written by Dixon Jones, Director of Search Consultancy, Receptional. Any opinions are those of the writer and do not directly reflect those of State of Search.

Written By
This post was written by an author who is not a regular contributor to State of Digital. See all the other regular State of Digital authors here. Opinions expressed in the article are those of the contributor and not necessarily those of State of Digital.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.