Michael Vick - Cops A Plea

So, the verdict is in - Michael Vick will indeed accept a plea deal. This afternoon, Vick agreed to admit his guilt in a dogfighting and gambling scheme.Billy Martin, Vick's lead attorney, announced Vick's decision as a federal grand jury in Richmond, Va., was preparing additional charges against the Atlanta Falcons' quarterback. Interestingly, he's probably saving himself from some significant Jail time. It would be interesting to find out what additional charges would've have been filed against him, had he not surrendered.

There simply was no escape for Vick - after his former buddies agreed to take a deal and testify against him. This whole thing would be really funny, if it wasn't so sad. I feel like I'm watching an episode of Law & Order. Here's a guy who had it all, God given talent, all the trappings of success and a guaranteed multi million dollar contract. And he throws it all away - just like that.

Some will contend that Vick was unfairly targeted - I really can't find any merit in that argument. Each man must accept responsibility for his actions and his utterances. Life is truly all about the decisions we make. Everyday - we make choices - in our attitudes, our mind sets - everything we do or say, is about the choices we've made at a given time. I wish more of us would make better choices...........

SES San Jose - The Buzz So Far Is Universal / Blended Search

I learnt a new catch phrase today - GUS - which stands for Google Universal Search - at least that what Bill Slawski, of Commerce360 said, during the Universal & Blended Vertical Search session. You know you're a market leader when you put a new spin on an old idea, and industry experts start positioning it as the "new big thing". I blogged about the concept of Universal Search, some time back - at the time, I observed that the concept of surfacing a variety of multi-media features on SERPs, was not a novel or new concept. Marissa Mayer - launched the concept of GUS in a Google blog post, back in May.

So far at SES San Jose, the underlying theme seems to be that Search Engines are innovating on how to deliver a diverse set of relevance results - by blending in vertical search features. The panelists at this "Universal Search" session included - the always entertaining Greg Jarboe, of SEO-PR , Sherwood Stranieri from Catalyst online and Bill. There was also a brief QnA with representatives from ask, Google and Yahoo.

Greg opened the session by sounding the rally cry about how Universal Search will radically change the way Search Engines deliver results and Search Marketers will have to unlearn much of what they now know about improving their website ranking on SERPs. In May, Google rolled out Universal Search and since then it is making specialized or vertical content more visible online. Consequently, News, video, image and blog results are starting to appear more prominently in Google results.

Ultimately, SERPs will present a vastly different look and feel than the traditional 10 links. One key consequence of this trend is that News Search will become more important and Search Marketers must start optimizing their P.R releases for News Search. Other blended alternative results include - weather, music, travel bookings, products, business locations and maps. This trend could be very interesting for innovative organizations, striving to promote exciting features - a good example is the iphone , which now features a richer set of results because GUS surfaces Videos and imagery along with algorithmic links. Another example is a query for Hilary Clinton which surfaces imagery, video's and other interesting facts about the Presidential hopeful.

One key question which everyone wants answered is - do conventional ranking factors play a role in how vertical search results are integrated with Algorithmic Results? How will search engines determine where to add images, videos or blog search results? One approach for ranking vertical results on GUS, would be to try and determine the following:
- how often searches for that result are conducted in vertical databases,
− how well those results rank, and;
− how users treat those results.

This may mean, Search Marketers have to make sure that their sites rank well for vertical database searches on topics or themes which are popular with searchers. I can see how this trend would drive SEO's crazy. Google's response to questions about how Universal Search impacts Page Rank, was to maintain that GUS fits in with their overall strategy and they will continue to strive to showcase the depth and richness of information on the Internet.

So what can you do? Create useful content which users will like. Strive to enhance the user experience on your site and bring users to relevant pages as quickly as possible. Create informative, useful content and deliver it through multiple mediums and features - including video's, Gadgets, Maps, Imagery, applications as well as Site Content.

SES San Jose -The Internet Event of '07, Kicks Off In Hours......

As I examine the SES Conference Schedule for the various tracks, I'm struck by how much SES content has grown in recent years. I counted no less than 15 distinct tracks, most of which will have some pretty great sessions. It's Day 1, and I'm going with the Searcher Track. I'd like to hear what the experts think about the current Search Landscape. Stay tuned - I"ll try to bring some insightful analysis and key learnings from each session I attend.

The first session I attended was titled "The Search Landscape", the key objective of this session was to review the current Global Landscape for Search. We listened to brief presentations from Jeremy Crane, of Compete , of James M. Lamberti, comScore Networks as well as Jon Stewart, from Nielsen//NetRatings and Bill Tancer, of Hitwise. All in all, a pretty good panel of industry experts in the field of Search Reporting.

Bill Tancer pointed out that, based on hitwise data trends, Googlecontineus to grow at a rate of 24.3% - compared to August 2006. Yahoo Search gained 17.2% while Live Search decreased. It's intereting that Bill Tancer reffered to Live Search as MSN Search (plus live.com). This was a relatively common theme amongst the SES Speakers - on day 1. That truly speaks to the lack of recal which the Live Search brand currently has, amongst industry insiders.

According to Bill, the top 3 Search Engines are taking a larger share of total searchess generated by users who visit the the 1000 plus sites which Hitwise tracks.

Bill also chose to discuss a question which he's been pondering lately - is facebook the next google? Facebook has experienced two tipping pints: Corporate networks and opening access to anyone with an email address. The Social Networking sites' remarkable growth came after they opened up their system to the general public and reduced restrictions account set ups.

Clearly Social networks are interesting because they don't rely on Search Engine Traffic to drive page view growth. A review of the traffic sources to Facebook revealed the following trends.

• Net communities and social search: 33.8%
• Search: 9.3%: Much of which is made up of navigational terms (e.g - facebook, social networks, e.t.c)
• Portals 11.3%
• Email: 21.8%

Interestingly, users seem to be open to using more than one social networking site and being members of different social networking communities. Back in '95, our home page was our protal page, that's where we go things started. In the late 90's the Search Engines became the starting point for many. Recently Search Engines have started incoprationg more content and becoming more like portals.

Social networking sites are becoming the starting point for our online search experiences. As social networks grow, more and more content is being incorporated and Search Engine's popularity as a "home base" may be diminishing. Bill reasoned that bettering the search experience within Social networks is a valuable initiative which Search engines definitely should examine.

Next up was Jon Stewart from NNR - he focussed on the use of Search Engines as a Customer Acquisition Tool. The key thrust of his presentation was that Search Engines play a big role in getting users to online (retail sales) websites, but plays a less significant role in getting people to transact - once they arrive at the specific site. Interestingly: Googles share of transactional referrals mirros it's overall search market share - followed by Yahoo 17% and MSN 14%. MSN, Yahoo and Google have varying degrees of value in driving transactional referrals in each of the niche categories such as Specialty Apparel, luxury goods and Specialty homes.

From my perspective, this information wasn't particularly useful. Search Engines are no more or less likely to help drive customer acquisition than any other online destination. Especially when one considers that Search Engines are primarily a research tool, used during the early stages of the purchase funnel. In many cases, users will extensively research items online through Search Engines and then go into a physical store and make a purchase.

Compete.com is a data aggregator - focussed primarily on the U.S Online population. According to their data files, 90% of all online media spending is spent on the top 50 websites. There are 6.5B searches in the U.S each month, But only 4B result in search refferrals. Here's how the Compete Index breaks out of current Search Share from Julyu '06 to date.
Google : 66%
Yahoo: 20%: showing the most decline over the past year
MSN: 10%
Ask: 3%

Usage of Google is higher in the market amongst men and lower for women. Seniours over index in their suage of Yahoo!, Live Search and Ask. Men have a 4% greater likelyhood of using Google than the entire Search Market in general, and are significantly less likely to use ask or Live Search.

Interestingly, both Liberals & Conservaties tend to overindex on Google (Liberals :80% vs. Conservatives: 73%). One interesting point I which Jeremy mentioned was that
Searchers tend to perfoam all their searches for a given topic on a single engine. He gave an example of Airline industry related searches.

Apparently, 80% of google users only use goodle for airline searches - 66% of Live search users will use only Live search for airline searches. So it's important to buy keywords on different search engines, or a large group of consumers will never see your message. 62% of purchase related activity occurs the day before the actual purchase. The search activity leading up to the actual purchase can run 2 - 3 months long. At the start of the purchase funnel, high level Brand/Generic type keywords are used. As users proceed through the funnel, they start to generate more product specific keywords. They then review comparative data just before the actual purchase is made. The focus on Brands seems to happen towards the end of the purchase process.

Key Tips For Search Marketers

1. Search Marketers need to be in more than one place at the same time and spread their message across multiple search engines.
2. Don't focus on just google and yahoo, Live search has loyalists who use (primarily) Live Search
3. Know your target consumer - where are your consumers, what are they searching for and where do they search for it?
4. Say the right thing at the right time: Get a message in front of your users (a branding message), which will compel them to make a purchase. You don't necessarily want to put a hard sell in their face - right of the bat.

Lastly, we heard from Comscore about their new qSearch 2.0 reporting tool and their impressions on the current Search Landscape. Below are my key points.

• Comscore has a Panel of 2M people around the world who have opted-in to let them observe their online behaviour. Comscore is currently in 32 Countires, worldwide.
• qSearch: provides clients with in-depth analysis of consumer search activiety across a variety of metrics: search queries, paid search impressions, paid clicks, natual clicks, conversion.
• qSearch will analyze Core search, local, image, auto search, Toolbar search amongst other verticals
• qSearch 2.0 will deliver fair and consistent treatment of today's major search players regardless of: Taxonomy, Technical Implementations, Business Relationships / Partnerships

Comscore hope that qSearch 2.0 will help address the apparent lack of Inventory which is putting pressure on bid rates. qSearch will help expose more inventory on the search landscape. Clearly, the industry needs to start looking beyond the established players for inventory in the Search Landscape. Comscore indicated that there were 13B queries in the U.S - in July. (up 6.2% MoM), and the Global Query volume continues to grow at a steady rate.

Analyzing data effectively was also a hot topic during this session. The Comscore panelist maintined that Search Marketers need to look at some key factors.

-> Search Penetration: how many people are doing it

-> Search Intentisity: the level of Search Engagement. Searches/Searcher

-> Algo Click Through Rate: How many people actually clicked on a paid link

Key Trends
Heavy Searchers are driving the industry. 70% of search activity is driven by only 20% of online users. So you are talking to the same group of people but you have multiple opportunities to reach them. Web Search remains the dominant Consumer activity. Web search YoY growth is easily the strongest. Other verticals also show strong YoY growth.

Social Networking Sites are driving vast amounts of query volume - and this creates interesting opportunities. Youtube drives 1B queries monthly, My space could be the 4th Search Engine in the U.S, they are bigger than Ask and AOL - in terms of the volume of queries which are driven on a monthly basis. eBay is also bigger than Ask or AOL Search - in terms of overall query volume.

Global Search Share: Comscore will now report on Search query volume in every country where comscore does business, around the world. Already - this sets a new trend in terms of overall query volume and the relative importance of the U.S - vs ROW.

US Searches: 13Billion monthly.
ROW: offers tremendous opportunity - at 60B queries monthly.

All in all, a good first session - more to come later..

Live In San-Jose: "Has Google's Growth Come At A Price??"

So, I'm all set for only my second SES event - here in San Jose. I'm told this one is the mother of all SES events and I'm looking forward to hearing all that it has to offer. Personally, I'm more interested in the Business of Search, so I like to comment on trends which I believe will impact the Search Business Landscape. I'm sure all Search Engines want to make the World's Information readily available to everyone, but to do that, you need $$$$$ and plenty of it.

That's why I was drawn to an article in the San Jose Mecury News today - titled "Google's Growth Has Come at a Price" - that's not saying much, any form of astronomical growth always comes at a price. Since Google went public in Aug '04 - at $85/Share, its market value has grwon nearly 500% to $156Billion. In Comparison, MSFTs value is not reflected in it's current valuations. Ah - but now, Google is feeling the heat from the dreaded Anti-trust regulators. Seems that the proposed purchase of DoubleClick doesn't sit well with those trust folks in the US - even the Europeans are keen to scrutinize the deal.
So now, the shoe is on the other foot - and Google is playing defense. Basically, the Anti-Trust folks are concerned about two key points.

1. Google's apparent dominance of the rapidly growing Online Advertising Landscape would be made much stronger by the purchase of DoubleClick, with it's strengh in serving and tracking Display ads.

2. Double Click and Google individually have vast amounts of personal information on peoples online surfing / buying habits and trends.

This may be seen as a "Microsoft like" dominant position which could effectively eliminate competition in the Online services sector. Somehow, I think Yahoo and MSN may have something to say about that - but niether will complain about the regulators interest in Google.

Perhaps there's more to all this than it seems. Certainly Google stands to gain from the purchase of Double Click, however - there is growing animosity against the company, and probably plenty of envy to boot. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out - Sergey and Larry would do well to learn from the painful lessons of others...........

Pilots Rescue Stranded Individuals In Oklahoma

So, I just arrived in my hotel in San Jose, getting ready for SES tommorrow. I happenned to catch a live broadcast of a rescue operation mounted by the Oklahoma Police - to pick up individuals who were stranded during some very severe floods out there.

Now let me break this down as best I see it. Police Officers are not trained hang off helicopters and execute rescue's of this nature. I saw some pretty remarkable piloting from the Police Helicopter Pilots and some extremely heroic stuff from the other officers. They're doing all this while CNN and FOX are beaming this stuff live - to millions of people around the world.

Imagine, trying to execute on a "stretch assignment" that you haven't really been trained for - with millions of people watching you and scrutinizing everything you do? And yet the copters are going back and forth, scooping folks up and whisking them to safety and then immediately going back out to do it again. These police officers are true heroes - and their efforts should be acknowledged.

I've often mused about different types of career paths - and what it means to excel or underperform in your daily job. For most of us, a bad day is just that - one bad day. I'm a Business Manager with a keen interest in developing and executing strategic initiatives. If I have a really bad day, perhaps a Business Unit or Organization that I oversee will not meet Revenue Goals - or we may fail to properly execute a specific strategic initiative. Most of us can recover easily from Bad Days or even Bad Years.

If these Police Officers in Oklahoma have a bad day today, people will die. Same goes for Doctors, Nurses and practically anyone in Health Services or Law Enforcement. Today - I'm simply thankful for the Men and Women who work hard everyday to save and preserve people's lives.....

Is Live Search Really Gaining Search Share?

Recently – I came across a post on the Compete blog – regarding changes Search Share gains for Live Search at the expense of Google. According to the data provided by Compete, live.com increased their query volume by 67% from May, and 48% from a year ago.

Search volume was up all across board in June, with the 3 main search engines gaining or holding share. However a large portion of the incremental Live Search Queries are coming from the Live Search Club, where the lure of great prizes is clearly encouraging users to play games for points.

All of the games involve using Live Search – and naturally, this has lead to a significant increase in Live Search Query Volume. This sounds like great news for Live Search and for Microsoft – however, there’s been some speculation that “Bots” helped boost Live Search gains.

Apparently a portion of Live Search Query gains can be attributed to bots, though the exact percentage isn't clear. Some Live Search Club users have asserted that automated searches account for a significant portion of Microsoft's search share gain. You can’t argue with the value proposition of the prizes – which include Microsoft including Microsoft Xboxes, Zunes and even Windows Vista. Interestingly, Internet Opportunists, not content to game the system, are now selling Live Search Club accounts on ebay. There's even an instructional video on YouTube to teach would-be scammers how to beat the system. So, now I’m really curious about Bots – and decided to do a little research of my own.

A Bot is derived from the word robot and is commonly used to describe a program on the internet. It is so named because it interacts with people as though it were a real person. Generally used by web crawlers and spiders on the web. These web robots interface with web pages to gather information. Internet bots, also known as web robots, WWW robots or simply bots, are software applications that run automated tasks over the internet. Typically, bots perform tasks that are both simple and structurally repetitive, at a much higher rate than would be possible for a human editor alone. The largest use of bots is in web spidering, in which an automated script fetches, analyses and files information from web servers at many times the speed of a human. Each server can have a file called robots.txt, containing rules for the spidering of that server that the bot is supposed to obey. In addition to their uses outlined above, bots may also be implemented where a response speed faster than that of humans is required (eg gaming bots and auction-site robots) or less commonly in situations where the emulation of human activity is required, for example chat bots.

Search engines use Bots to spider websites with and online games such as Quake use Bots as artificial opponents. Bots do not need to eat, drink or sleep and will relentlessly do their masters bidding until told to stop. The Live Search Club is a brilliant promotional & marketing campaign for Microsoft -becuase it leverages the use of key Microsoft Assets, Products & Services - to promote a Search Engine which is clearly already growing in popularity. Now if only they can get rid of all those pesky bots....................

Cheers.

My Take "On How To Beat Google"?

Recently, I came across a post with featuring 12 tips on how to beat Google. Below, I take a closer look at each of these tips and offer my own insights.

A conventional attack against Google's search product will fail. They are unassailable in their core domain. If you merely duplicate Google's search engine, you will have nothing. A copy of their product with your brand has no pull against the original product with their brand.
-> Not sure how you win the hearts and minds of Searchers if you don't mount a strong attack on Google's search product. If indeed Google is not invincible - then why not try to create a more relevant Search Engine - especially when it's widely known that over 40% of existing Searches go unaswered.

Duplicating Google's engine is uninteresting anyway. The design and approach were begun a decade ago. You can do better now.
-> Google didn't invent th ecurrent UI for most Search Engines, they inherited it. That said, they certainly improved overall performance and relevance of Search Engines. There's absolutely nothing wrong with duplicating the design and approach which Google uses - the key challenge is to deliver a very light page and fast ultra-relevant results. Utilizing the same design approach as Google can actually be an advantage, because users will feel comfortable with the format.

You need both a great product and a strong new brand. Both are hard problems. The lack of either dooms the effort. "Strong new brand" specifically excludes "search.you.com". The branding and positioning are half the battle.
-> I think it's save to say that the key players in the "Search Wars" are now clearly defined - at least for the next 5 years. It's highly unlikely that any totally new brand is going to challenge the big 3 -with 2 smaller players fighting for scraps. Very few Global Organizations have the resources to mount a challenge to Google in the Search Space. Yahoo has tried - but Microsoft's Live Search is clearly the key pretender to the throne. I think the value of a "Strong New Brand" is probably overated anyway. Both Yahoo Search and Live Search derive a large proportion of their Query Volume through their General Interest Portals. Google is the only truly Global Search Engine - it's brand is strong becuase it's undiluted by Portal Channels and Communications Products. If Yahoo and MSN can continue to grow their audiences and get their users to use their Search Engines more often, they'll certainly take share from Google. (assuming of course that their Search Engines achieve releative parity with Google, in relevance and performance).

You need to position your product to sub-segment the market and carve out a new niche. Or better, define an entirely new category. See Ries on how to launch a new brand into a market owned by a competitor. If it can be done in Ketchup or Shampoo, it can be done in search.
-> This makes no sense at all. Let's take a step back and consider the key objective of this post - "How to beat Google". How can you hope to defeat the Google Juggernut, by "carving out a new niche"? What niche? What Category? The Value Proposition of any Search Engine is clear - to help users quickly get information. The revenue model of most Search Engines is also quite clear - sponsored links, with a key engagemetn parameter. This market place is growing at a rapid clip already. People understand it and the ROI must be pretty good. Otherwise Google wouldn't be delivering Billion Dollar Revenue figures each quarter. So tell me how you beat Google by looking for a new "niche" market. Search Verticals are great, but thus far, over 80% of Queries are for Algorithmic Search Results, plus, there's no siginificant revneu to be had in Vertical Search, at least not today. So, you can't beat Google by looking for a sub-segment of a market which they already control.

Forget interface innovation. The editorial value of search is in the index, not the interface. That's why google's minimalist interface is so appealing. Interface features only get in the way.
-> This point directly contradicts point #2 above. I actually disagree with this point. Innovation is always important and always useful. Google had no idea that their Search Engine would be such a big hit when they began innovating in an effort to improve on existing Search Engines at the time. They intuitively felt that they could do a better job with the bid-price model with Bill Gross pioneered with goto.com, and they did. It's possible to create a strong value proposition with an alternartive, UI - perhaps one with more vertical search integration. The key challenge is that it's a lot more difficult to monetize specialized search results - and at the end of the day, that's really what drives the business.

Forget about asking users to do anything besides typing two words into a box.
-> Not so sure I understand this point - but I'll take a stab at providing my insights. As an avid searcher, I often type two or three lines in a Search Box, especially if I'm looking for very specific "time sensitive" information. I value the availabillity of the advanced search feature, which enables me to provide important context for my searches. If this comment implies that users don't want to do anything other than type a word or two in a box, I'd disagree. Search Influentials - and "Influentials" in general, help to shape Industry Trends. Your average influential does a whole lot of tail queries.

Users do not click on clusters, or tags, or categories, or directory tabs, or pulldowns. Ever. Extra work from users is going the wrong way. You want to figure out how the user can do even less work.
-> Similar point to the one made above. My response remains the same. No doubt, most users won't do any extra work UNLESS they see true VALUE in the results. That's the key. It's also worth noting none of the 3 leading search engines creates more work for users. The all have advanced search capabillities - but don't shove it down the users throats.

Your results need to be in a single column. UI successes like Google and blogging have shown that we don't want multiple columns. Distractions from the middle with junk on the sides corrupt your thinking and drive users away. -> Again, this is highly subjective. I don't care about multiple columns as long as the results I get are relevant. Most people enjoy getting a variety of results for their searches - I've never heard anyone complain about having to review multiple columns, but they'll complain about query results on a single result column, with poor relevance

Your product must look different than Google in some way that is deliberately incompatible with their UI, for two reasons. One, if you look the same as them, consumers can't tell how you're different, and then you won't pull any users over. Two, if your results are shown in the same form as Google's, they will simply copy whatever innovations you introduce. You need to do something they can't copy, not because they're not technically capable of doing so, but because of the constraints of their legacy interface on Google.com. -> The most important form of differentiation from Google - is to deliver a better quality product. If your marketing and promotional activities are strong enough, then feature and performance parity with Google may be sufficient. It is NOT necessary to deliver a UI which is incompatible with Googles -especially if you're not relying on your Brand Name to drive Traffic to your Search Engine. This goes back to my point about Yahoo and Live Search. I can see how this point may be true for ask.com or any of the smaller search engines, but they're not going to threaten Google anytime soon. If you try to create a UX which is markedly different from the Industry Leader, you force users to choose. Now, consider the fact that Google already processes well over half the number of search queries entered Worldwide - and then think about the key goal here "to beat Google".

Your core team will be 2-3 people, not 20. You cannot build something new and different with a big team. Big teams are only capable of duplicating existing technology. The sum of 20 sets of vision is mud.
-> Again subjective. Search is a very complex and interesting problem. There are many different ways to explore Search and deliver a compelling value proposition. I agree that when teams become too big - they are often unwieldy and sluggish. However, there's no reason why a team of twenty can't be work on 4 or 5 seperate projects -as part of one key objective.

Search is more about systems software than algorithms or relevance tricks. That's why Google has all those OS programmers. You need a strong platform to win, you can't just cobble it together as you go like other big web apps.
-> Who knows if this assertion is totally accurate. At the end of the day, the users will decide, and you can be sure that they will lean towards the Search Engine which consistently thrills, excites them -while delivering useful, relevant information.

Do not fear Google's vast CapEx. You should wish maintenance of that monster on your worst enemies. Resource constraints are healthy for innovation. You're building something new and different anyway.
True - but if you ever hope to Challenge Google, then prepare for the same sought of CapEx that they have. Afterall, serving over 100m queries daily requires plenty of resources

As Search Wars Continue - Vertical Search Takes Centre Stage

Microsoft is working hard to give Live Search a much need boost -but is time running out? The Search Landscape in most Markets is still dominated by Google Inc. (GOOG ) and to a lesser degree - Yahoo Search (YHOO ). In February 2005, Microsoft's MSN Search accounted for nearly 14% of all Web searches, compared with a 46% share for search leader Google, according to research firm Nielsen//NetRatings. At that time, Microsoft lauched it's Monarch Search Platform and later that year, rebranded it's MSN Search - calling the refurbished engine - Windows Live Search and later - Live Search.

Just two years later, Microsoft's rebranded Windows Live Search has a 9.6% share, compared with Google's nearly 56%. That amounts to nearly 300 million lost searches per month.

This is a troubling trend. Revenue from online advertising is relatively small--just $836 million in the first six months of the fiscal year ending in June, vs. $5.9 billion in sales of the Windows PC operating system. But the Web is increasingly the place where computing gets done. Everything from e-mail to customer-relationship management applications is moving from programs on a PC to services on the Net. Meanwhile search advertising is exploding: Piper Jaffray & Co. (PJC ) says it should hit $44.5 billion by 2011, up from $15.8 billion in 2006. If Microsoft can't keep pace, it risks seeing its Windows and Office software franchises erode as Google and others launch Web-based rivals.

Early on, Google used its simple Web site to cement the impression that to search is to "Google." And because more people search there, Google has more data with which to target relevant ads. The result: By some estimates, Google nets at least 50% higher revenue per search than No.2 Yahoo and other search sites--allowing Google to keep investing more in improvements. For instance, on Mar. 21 it revealed a new program to give advertisers the opportunity to pay only when someone responds to an ad, by purchasing a product, filling out a form, or some other action--rather than merely when they click on it. That may be more attractive to advertisers who want concrete results. The Strategy seems to be working, In May, for example, only 8.4% of all searches among U.S. Web surfers went through Microsoft's MSN or Windows Live engines, compared with Google's 56.3% share, according to research firm Nielsen//NetRatings (NTRT).

Microsoft's recent focus on Vertical Search is good strategy. I think we will continue to see more oa a focus on vertical sites, as users become more sophisticated. The purchase of Medstory Inc., a health-care search engine for consumers and Tellme Networks Inc. are useful first steps. Microsoft is also trying to nudge its massive customer base over to its search engine. On Mar. 13 it struck a deal with PC maker Lenovo Group (LNVGY ) to preload machines with the Windows Live toolbar, which leads users into its search engine. Microsoft also launched a "trial program" where it offers some large businesses service and training credits--from $2 to $10 per computer--to get employees to use Windows Live Search. Sure, that amounts to buying business - but give the company credit for doing what it takes to create awareness about Live Search.

Now if they could just improve the relevance of their algorithmic results - then we'd really have a 3 horse race on our hands.