Bing commence montrant droit de paroles de chanson complète dans lesrésultats de la recherche

While SEOs debate Google’s recent addition of structured data in its search results, Bing is making a similar — and perhaps more significant — change to its search results:
Full song lyrics are now showing on Bing’s search results page in the US, and Bing says it plans to expand this outside the US in a matter of months.
Bing says this is available now for more than 500,000 songs and more will be added. If you want to see it in action, Bing gives the example of In The End by Linkin Park. You can also see Led Zeppelin’s Stairway To Heaven, Roar by Katy Perry and so forth.
When lyrics are available, Bing shows a portion of the song and a “See more” link that leads to the entire song. On the right, Bing shows more song/artist information from its Snapshot feature.

When there are multiple songs with the same or similar titles, Bing doesn’t seem to be trying to guess which one the user wants. The song lyrics don’t show up for searches like beautiful day lyrics or magic lyrics, for example.
Lyrics may show up for songs from any music genre. They’re currently being sourced from a site called LyricFind. We’ve reached out to Bing to find out if they’ve secured copyright permission to show these lyrics. Bing tells us that LyricFind is licensed to use the lyrics, and that license extends to Bing’s display.
I can’t recall the last time Google or Bing shared any data about how many lyrics searches are done, but it’s generally believed to be a very popular type of search query — making this a significant move on Bing’s part. (A comScore spokesperson told me this morning that the company doesn’t specify the types of searches occurring on the major search engines.)
I should add a disclaimer before I continue: As someone who launched a U2 fan site two decades ago that offers song lyrics with the record label’s permission, this is an area of extreme personal interest for me.
There are pros and cons to what Bing is doing here.
On one hand, there are a lot of lyrics sites online that happen to very good at SEO but quite terrible at user experience. They rank well, but a searcher that clicks through might have to fight through multiple pop-up windows, extremely ad-heavy pages, auto-play audio or video and more. So in this sense, it might be better for searchers to be able to get lyrics right on a search results page.
On the other hand, the lyrics are on these sites are quite often wrong, and it didn’t take long for me to find mistakes. The lyrics that Bing shows for U2's “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” are on the left below, and the lyrics from my website are on the right — lyrics that were transcribed after careful listening to exactly what is sung, not just what shows up in an album’s liner notes.

You might say that it doesn’t really matter if every single word in a song lyric be accurate, but if search engines are going to show content, data and facts in their search results, we should expect it to be accurate, no matter if it’s song lyrics or medical information.
The other obvious implication here surrounds search traffic to lyrics sites (and fan sites like mine). According to comScore estimates for August, Bing has less than one-third the search market share that Google has, so Bing’s move may not cause a lot of harm. But imagine if Google were to start showing full song lyrics in its search results… is that something we’ll see eventually, now that Bing has taken the lead?
Postscript: This article has been updated from the original version with additional information from Bing.
(Sheet music image via Creative Commons.)
Some opinions expressed in this article may be those of a guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land. Staff authors are listed here.
Matt McGee is the Editor-In-Chief of Search Engine Land. His news career includes time spent in TV, radio, and print journalism. After leaving traditional media in the mid-1990s, he began developing and marketing websites and continued to provide consulting services for more than 15 years. His SEO and social media clients ranged from mom-and-pop small businesses to one of the Top 5 online retailers. Matt is a longtime speaker at marketing events around the U.S., including keynote and panelist roles. He can be found on Twitter at @MattMcGee and/or on Google Plus. You can read Matt's disclosures on his personal blog.
View the original article here

Read More

Unknown 03:07  No comment

SEO Organizations Call For “Search Congress” To Create & Enforce SearchMarketing Code Of Ethics

SEMPO, along with other search marketing organizations, are calling for SEOs to participate in a “Search Congress” to help draft and enforce a search engine marketing code of ethics for North America.

While the initial search congress and creation of the North American Search Engine Marketing Code of Ethics is being organized by SEMPO, the overall goal is for the initiative to be led by a grass-root effort of existing and future search engine marketing organizations.SEMPO

According to the announcement, anyone wanting to participate must be nominated by an eligible search engine marketing organization, including regional associations, virtual communities or other eligible groups.
To clarify which groups would qualify to nominate delegates, SEMPO listed the following requirements:
Groups that self-identify as serving search engine marketers in some capacity.Groups that are at least 1 year old.Groups that have at least 10 dues-paying members.Active SEMPO Local groups that are more than 1 year old.Groups that are primarily active in North America.Groups that have pre-existing by-laws.
“Everyone has different opinions about what a search engine marketing code of ethics should contain,” said SEMPO vice president of communications Tony Wright, “The only way to create a code of ethics that will work is to ensure those people who are interested have buy-in and there is a fair way to enforce the code of ethics once it is ratified.”
An informative meeting to discuss the initiative will be hosted at Pubcon in Las Vegas October 6 – 9. SEMPO said the meeting location and scheduled time will be posted on @SEMPOGlobal and @Pubcon social media feeds.
Some opinions expressed in this article may be those of a guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land. Staff authors are listed here.
Amy Gesenhues is Third Door Media's General Assignment Reporter, covering the latest news and updates for Search Engine Land and Marketing Land. From 2009 to 2012, she was an award-winning syndicated columnist for a number of daily newspapers from New York to Texas. With more than ten years of marketing management experience, she has contributed to a variety of traditional and online publications, including MarketingProfs.com, SoftwareCEO.com, and Sales and Marketing Management Magazine. Read more of Amy's articles.
View the original article here

Read More

Unknown 03:01  No comment

Measuring PPC Account Efficiency Vs. Volume: A Case Study

As PPC professionals, we are constantly working to optimize accounts. Whether it be improving conversion rate, increasing ROI, or lowering cost per conversion, the job is never done. We want to show our clients the best results and have them feel justified in hiring us.
Another phrase I use in conjunction with the term “optimization” is “account efficiency.”
In other words, are goals consistently being met, or does performance vary month to month? If the former, then chances are the account is efficient, meaning relevancy from search query to conversion is well aligned.
However, therein lies an issue that is constantly on my mind….
In making accounts efficient, I tend to worry that I’m leaving conversions on the table. I struggle with the notion that I’m making my keywords too specific or that I’m limiting ad exposure in other ways.
And I’m not talking about bidding on a root term in a broader match type in order to secure a few more conversions — I’m concerned that overall account decisions are limiting additional qualified traffic.
To try and quantify this notion of efficiency vs. volume, I’ll be presenting data from an e-commerce account that my agency inherited at the beginning of July. The data will look at Google AdWords year-over-year performance for July, August and September.
The reason I am reviewing this particular account is because we essentially started from scratch. The account had been dormant for a couple of months and, along with a new strategy, needed extensive campaign builds.
I want to emphasize that this case study and my associated thoughts should not be considered universal. As with everything PPC, there are so many variables. What works for one account may not work for another. This study is an attempt to quantitatively review the data and provide my analysis. You might do the same for your accounts to measure their efficiency.
Before presenting the data, I want to share exactly how I went about making the account efficient so as to provide context around the numbers. First off, all new campaigns included these parameters:
Ad groups consisted only of exact and modified broad match keywordsEach campaign began with a negative keyword list of 80 terms; these negatives came from historical account performance and proactive researchAll ad groups contained at least four ads — two targeting desktops and two showing on mobile devicesAlong with Search Network text ads, Google Shopping, Remarketing, Dynamic Search Ad (DSA), and Remarketing for Dynamic Search Ad (RDSA), campaigns began running in the first week of account managementSitelinks were used in every campaign; additionally, we were able to participate in the callout extensions beta and started running in early August
Next, bids were aimed at showing ads within the top three positions. Average position for Search Network text ads (not including Brand) during this time period was 2.2.
Finally, there were general Display campaigns (non-remarketing) running in 2013 that aren’t present in 2014. These Display campaigns accounted for less than 10% of overall spend; however, they encompassed about 1/3 of total impressions.
First, let’s take a look at click-through rate (CTR) and average cost-per-click (CPC) for just the Search Network (as the Display campaigns of 2013 would severely skew data).
CTR: 2013 vs. 2014
CTR remains stagnant in July year-over-year, but the big jumps come month-over-month.
From July 2014 to August 2014, CTR rises by 0.19 percentage points. During that same time period in 2013, CTR decreases by 0.01 percentage point. Even though September 2014 CTR decreased by 0.05 percentage points, it still saw a nice jump year-over-year.
CPCs also trended in the right direction, as 2014 monthly figures were lower than their 2013 counterparts. In both years, CPCs increased from month to month, representing a seasonal trend (which is accurate to the demand of this product).
Average CPC: 2013 vs. 2014
Similar to CPC, conversions spiked from July to August during both years. However, conversions nearly doubled in 2014 — whereas in 2013, they only increased by about 17%.
Both September months saw conversion growth from the previous month, as well. September 2014 saw 152 more conversions than August, while, in 2013, August to September conversions increased by 29.
Conversions: 2013 vs. 2014
It’s interesting to note the cost difference in relation to the conversion graph. Both years see increased costs month-over-month with 2014 seeing more dramatic changes.
When we compare this graph with conversions, we see that August 2014 saw 84% the conversions of August 2013 at only 63% of the cost. Based upon all graphs so far, the month of August is when the account had its most efficient month.
Cost: 2013 vs. 2014
Furthermore, cost-per-conversion in August and September 2014 were at least $1.31 less than their 2013 counterparts. Not only was overall cost and cost-per-conversion lower in 2014, but also, conversions nearly hit 2013 figures.
Cost per Conversion: 2013 vs. 2014
Following the conversion trend, each month’s revenue in 2014 was a greater percentage of that same month in 2013.
September 2014 revenue was just under 82% of September 2013 revenue at roughly 72% the cost of the previous year.
Revenue: 2013 vs. 2014
Finally, when reviewing return on ad spend (ROAS), each month in 2014 is above 500%.
Here is where efficiency comes most into play as the account is spending less and showing a better return. Overall, conversion and revenue volume are lower, but show solid increases month-over-month.
ROAS: 2013 vs. 2014
I hope, after presenting this case study, my concern about account efficiency vs. volume is clearer. Based upon all data, account efficiency is much improved over 2013 as ROAS is up, cost-per-conversion down, and CTR increased.
The caveat is that overall conversions are down. The question that must be asked is whether we should be OK with these results. Does better efficiency make up for volume loss?
In this case, I would say yes. Lost in this discussion is that the account has been growing month-to-month, even if volume is lower than last year.
It’s not like maximum efficiency has been hit and everything else is secondary. New campaigns are actively going live while optimizations are constantly being made. Throw in the seasonality factor, and a strong effort is being made to garner more qualified traffic.
Ultimately, the goal of many PPC accounts is to become more efficient. Gaining the most conversion and revenue volume is the main goal in some accounts, but by-and-large, showing high efficiency is necessary.
I would add that there needs to be more of a balance, but more so stacked in the favor of efficiency. In other words, gaining more high quality traffic should complement account efficiency.
Some opinions expressed in this article may be those of a guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land. Staff authors are listed here.
Matt Umbro is a Senior Account Manager in charge of Community at Hanapin Marketing. He specializes in eCommerce PPC and client relations, and he also oversees content production for PPC Hero.
View the original article here

Read More

Unknown 02:57  No comment