But while the long tail has boasted widespread adoption throughout the search marketing community, there does not appear to be a universal agreement among PPC specialists about exactly how many words constitute a long tail keyword. Nor does there appear to be agreement about which other metrics – price, search volume, competitiveness or purchase intention – should be used in defining a long-tail keyword.

Definitions of long tail keyword length vary greatly, from the vague mention of several words and nothing more than a series of words strung together, to the less vague description of 2 or more words, 3 or more words, and usually more than 2 words in length, to the very specific combination of 3-6 words and at least three, and some times as many as five words.

One definition rejects the long tail’s use in describing keywords of 3-4 words, instead referring to them as keyword gems, while others define long tail keywords not by definition but by using examples such as ‘myspace’ vs. ‘is myspace free to use in china’.

I’m hardly any better at providing a clear definition. In a previous post I wrote on the benefits of long tail keywords, my confusion over what exactly constitutes a long tail keyword made me shirk away from providing a clear definition, and I opting for a cop-out by providing an example of a long-tail keyword (e.g. ‘cheap remortgage for bad credit history’) along with a more generic keyword (e.g. ‘remortgages’).

So in search for a more definitive definition of long tail keywords, let’s break the long tail keyword down into its alleged factors to uncover its fundamental, defining properties and determine a clear definition of the long tail. Based on the above definitions of the long-tail, the following 5 characteristics all seem to play an important role:

• Number of words in keyword

• Search volume of keyword

• Competitiveness of keyword

• Price of keyword

• Purchase intention of keyword

Let’s look at each of these 5 areas to see how useful they are in describing long tail keywords:

1. Number of words in keyword

It makes sense that a long-tail keyword contains a greater number of words than a short-tail or head keywords. But exactly how many words should a long tail keyword contain?

Although some definitions of long tail keywords specify a lower and upper limit for the number of words it must contain (e.g. 3-6 words), it makes little sense placing an upper limit on the maximum number of words a long-tail keyword can contain.

The more important question here is exactly how many words should a keyword contain until it is classed as long tail? In the definitions we looked at earlier, we’ve had mentions of anything over 2 words, anything over 3 words, and anything over 5 words.

Then there is the question of whether the number of words in a keyword really matters at all. For example, a short keyword such as ‘antique bingo clothing’ (3 words and very niche) might be considered long-tail, whereas a longer keyword such as ‘car insurance for women’ (4 words and very popular) might be seen as highly competitive and therefore not a long tail keyword.

So perhaps the number of words isn’t useful in defining long tail keywords. Perhaps search volume or competitiveness might be better.

2. Search volume of keyword

Again, it makes sense that keywords with low search volume should be classified as long tail keywords.

But exactly how low a search volume must a keyword have before it is labelled as a long tail keyword? 10 searches a day, 10 searches a month, or 10 searches a lifetime?

While long-tail keywords surely must have less search volume than highly generic keywords, clearly the definition of a long tail keyword should again not depend on a finite number. In searching for a definition, all we can say is that long tail keywords are generally searched for in less volume than more generic keywords.

3. Competitiveness of keyword

What about the competitiveness of a keyword? Are keywords with little competition long-tails?

If so, exactly how much advertiser competition is needed before a long-tail keyword becomes long tail no more? While Google’s keyword tool provides a scale of advertiser competition ranging from 0 to 1 to represent the competitiveness of a keyword, it does not have much practical use in reliably distinguishing between generic keywords and long tail keywords.

So once again, while competitiveness is definitely a defining factor in long-tail keywords, we can only say that long tail keywords tend to have less competition than those which are not long tail. We can’t say specify the exact amount of competition needed to distinguish between generic keywords and long tail keywords.

4. Price of keyword

What about the price of a keyword? Surely long tail keywords are those super cheap phrases you can bid on for $0.10?

Well, since the price of a keyword is linked to its competitiveness, it makes sense that long tail keywords would be cheaper than shorter keywords. And it also makes sense that the cost per click prices should be included in a definition of long tail keywords. But once again, it’s impossible to define exactly where the long tail cost per click cut-off lies. And since keyword prices are also closely linked to the purchase intention and the amount of potential profit which might arise from a sale, keyword prices naturally vary between industries and markets. Again, all that we that long tail keywords are generally cheaper than shorter keywords.

5. Purchase intention of keyword

Purchase intention is interesting. The theory behind purchase intention is that people who make longer, more specific search queries (e.g. ‘casio exilim ex-fh100 digital camera’) are more likely to have already carried out the majority of their pre-purchase research compared to people making shorter, generic searches (e.g. ‘digital cameras’). They are likely to be more informed about their buying needs, and therefore more likely to convert.

Longer keywords have long been known for their higher conversion rates, and many a PPC advertiser’s campaigns are built around a huge number of long tail keywords due to their strong conversion rates.

But does buying intention really form part of the definition of a long tail keyword? While it is true that some longer keywords (e.g. ‘casio exilim ex-fh100 digital camera’) exhibit high buying intention, other longer keywords (e.g. ‘how do clouds form in rainforests’) display little or no buying intention. Similarly, some shorter phrases (e.g. ‘buy apple ipad’) show significant purchase intent, while other shorter variations (e.g. ‘capital of peru’) display little or no intention to buy.

Purchase intention is therefore rather tenuous in its use in describing a long tail keyword.

RELATIVE

While it seems that word count, search volume, competitiveness, and price all play some kind of role in defining a long tail keyword, there are too many exceptions for word count, search volume, competitiveness, and price to becoming defining features of the long-tail:

A keyword which receives 10 clicks a day might be labelled as long-tail to a large advertiser, and labelled as generic to a small, niche advertiser. The keyword hasn’t changed, but the description of it has depending on the circumstance.

Similarly, the keyword ‘casio exilim digital cameras’ might be seen as an uncompetitive long tail keyword to an advertiser spending $500,000/month on clicks, while instead being seen as a highly-competitive generic keyword to a smaller advertiser spending only $50/month on clicks.

Perhaps long tail keywords should not be defined in terms of absolute measures, such as number of words or number of clicks, but instead only used as a relative measure when comparing keywords? Rather than saying:

“This keyword here, ladies and gentlemen, is a long-tail keyword”

Perhaps it is better to say:

“This keyword here, ladies and gentlemen, is more long-tail than this other one”

How would you describe a ‘long tail keyword’? In terms of searches, clicks, CPCs, and competition? Or more in terms of a relative measure to compare one keyword (or set of keywords) to another? Your comments welcome below.

So it comes as a surprise to see widespread discussion criticising the quality of Google search results among search marketing professionals, talk of people getting up in arms because they can’t find the information they are looking for, mention of people having to resort to old-fashioned bookmarking to avoid losing track of that golden nugget of an article they found back in 2003.

Are search results really becoming less relevant? Or are our expectations of high quality search results increasing faster that improvements in search quality can keep up? While Google no doubt needs to continue to improve the relevancy and usefulness of it search results, it’s not just Google who need to improve. We can also learn how to better construct our search queries to find the right information more quickly and easily.

More Information

There are no two ways about it – the amount of information on the internet is growing at an exponential rate. And while the number of pages being indexed by search engines such as Google rises exponentially, the number of Google search results remains unchanged. More information, but still only 10 search results. Google, therefore, are faced with the dilemma of trying to organise the world’s increasingly varied information into 10 small search results, while at the same time trying to please an increasing number of varied searchers who use the same search words but have entirely different requirements.

But should we really blame Google? Perhaps Google’s search results have not got less relevant. Perhaps, instead, our demands for increased relevancy have grown, providing us with the false illusion that Google’s search result relevancy has deteriorated.

Be Commanding

While Google must work to improve the relevancy of its search results, and also better understand searcher intentions to provide the most appropriate, useful, and personalised search results, we also need to take some responsibility if want a seamless searching experience. Faced with the dilemma of mounting information yet more increasingly individualistic preferences, we need to become more informed about how to better find the information we seek. Let’s have a look at a few possibilities using Google’s search commands:

1. Use “quotation marks” if you know certain words appear in a certain order. This is especially useful for finding the name of song if you only know one line, or finding an academic article if you know the title.
2. Use +plus +signs to denote essential words in your search query. These are words which you know are important to your search, and must be included in your search query. Avoid using plus signs for words about which you are as less confident, as this will dilute the relative importance of your more essential words.
3. Use –hyphens to remove words which you know are irrelevant. If you’re looking for football (soccer) pitches in Australia, and see a whole bunch of results for AFL pitches, adding the word ‘–AFL’ would improve the relevancy of your results considerably.
4. Use OR operators if you are unsure of certain aspects of your query. If you’d like to eat at a Melbourne Italian restaurant in either Windsor or Prahran, searching for ‘Melbourne Italian restaurant Windsor OR Prahran’ would show results which satisfy either of your location criteria.

Be Creative

But it’s not just about learning the Google commands. For a completely stress-free searching experience, it’s also about learning how to think strategically, creatively intelligently when making searches:

1. Use the rarest and most unique words possible. If you’re looking for a certain hotel in New York your friend recommended recently, but can’t quite remember the name, don’t just search for ‘New York hotels’. Where possible, try to include rarer and more unique words such as ‘hotels Manhattan’ (if you know the hotel is in Manhattan), or include other unique aspects such as ‘cheapskate Tuesdays’ you know about the hotel. Similarly, if you’re looking for that article you read last year, try to remember something unique about it. Did the article provide an uncommon but memorable metaphor to illustrate a point? Did it mention anything which would separate it from other similar articles on the subject, and make it one of a kind? The more unique and specific you can make your search, the better.
2. Only include words in your search query which will narrow down the information you seek. Avoid adding words into your search query which do little to better specify your intentions, as this will reduce search result relevancy. Google can’t weight the relative importance of each of your words (other than using plus signs to denote essential words), and will see each of your words as equal importance. So if the 4^th word in your query is not as helpful as your first three words, get rid of it – this will add more weighting to your more important words.
3. Consider how combinations of Google commands can help you be more specific. If you’re looking for the name of a song, but can only remember two short lines of lyrics, enter those lyrics in the same query, but separate them with quotation marks. If all you can remember about the song is the words ‘walk by the trees’ and ‘coat to the rain’, entering those words into google without quotation marks will give you an unhelpful result. However, thinking strategically, and placing each of your lyric snippets in quotation marks, will provide a very helpful result. By using Google strategically, you can quickly and easy find the name of the song that’s stuck in your head.

And the creativity doesn’t just stop there. Ken Lyons from WordStream wrote an excellent article on using Google to find anyone’s email address, providing numerous examples of how to cleverly construct your search queries to retrieve only the most  useful results. Similarly, Ann Smarty provided some great insight into using Google to find guest post opportunities, identifying key phrases which are likely to appear on pages asking for guest post writers. Want a new job? Try searching for something like:

+location + “job title” “we’re looking for” OR “ideal candidate will” OR “the following skills” OR “your CV” OR “your resume” OR “cover letter” OR “covering letter”

Or get even more creative and add date parameters into your job search to increase the likelihood of finding recent job postings. It could be a great way to find poorly advertised job postings and give yourself a greater chance of securing a new role.

Be Intelligent

It is all too easy to jump on the bandwagon and become frustrated with Google’s search results. While Google obviously has a significant role to play in improving their search results, so searchers also have a role to play in learning how to better structure their search queries. Plus signs for required words, hyphens for irrelevant words, and inverted commas for phrases would improve the average searcher’s experience considerably, while thinking more creatively would also get better results. If we can learn to search more intelligently and strategically, I imagine few people will have trouble finding their desired information quickly and efficiently.

Do you think Google’s results are becoming less relevant? Or do you think it’s simply a case of making more intelligent search queries? Share your thoughts and comments below.

All very clever. And a massive time-saver too – reducing search time around the world by a massive 11 hours every second (not per person, in total).

But while this is arguably a change for the better, giving users a greater level of interactivity as they search, the announcement has had some negative reactions from search marketers.

End of the Long Tail?

The main concern, as pointed out by John Ellis in his Search Engine Land article, Will Google Instant Kill the Long Tail?, is that by giving users the ability to preview search results as they type, people will be more likely to accept search results for shorter words, and will be less likely to continue searching for highly-specific, long-tail phrases. This will ultimately lead to higher cost per click prices on shorter, generic keywords (as they grow in popularity), and large reductions in the value of long-tail keywords (as they fall in popularity).

Bad news for search marketers.

Why?

Because long-tails are incredibly profitable.

Long-tail keywords are those highly-specific phrases such as ‘luxury apartments in Paris for sale’, as opposed to short-tail keywords which are phrases such as ‘apartments for sale’ or ‘Paris apartments’. Due to the highly-specific nature of long-tails, people searching for long-tail phrases are generally more informed about their requirements, have done the majority of their research, are further along in the buying cycle, and are more likely to buy. Search marketers can therefore use long-tail keywords to very accurately provide highly-targeted ads, and expect to deliver a good return as a result.

The stats back up the theory – research I did last year on long-tail keywords found long-tails can be up to 50% cheaper and convert up to 200% better than short-tail keywords. Long-tails are a search marketer’s friend.

So it is no surprise then to see search marketers up in arms when Google announce a change which threatens to reduce the number of people searching for long-tail keywords.

But will it really have such an impact? Although Google’s Autocomplete feature in March 2009 did somewhat change search behaviour away from the long-tail, it largely had an insignificant effect on long-tail paid search strategy, with the long-tail still very much as powerful as before.

Now, as users are presented with instant search results, will people really change the way they search?

I think it depends on two crucial psychological elements: laziness and laziness

1. Will people get lazy with their keyboard?

Suppose you were interested in buying a luxury apartment in Paris. You start typing your query into Google…

Search results start to appear for Paris weather, Paris transport and Paris tourism. Not very relevant, so you keep typing…

That’s better. As you get more specific with your query, organic and paid search results start to appear with mentions of ‘Paris Apartments’.

Do you stop now and click though a link? Or do you keep searching and hope to get something even better?

Let’s keep typing…

Even better! As you add the words ‘for sale’ into you search query, organic and paid search results now only show listings for Paris apartments for sale. None of those irrelevant rental or holiday apartment listings. Just ones which are for sale.

So do you stop now and click through a link. They all look pretty good! Or do you keep on typing…

As you add the word ‘luxury’ into your search query, the results get even better! Organic and paid search listings for cheap, low cost, budget, discount apartments are no-where to be seen – all that’s visible are listings for luxury apartments. The best yet!

So when did you stop searching? When did something look relevant, catch your eye and bring your typing to an end? Was it after typing ‘paris apartments’? Or after ‘paris apartments for sale’? Or was it after ‘paris apartments for sale luxury’?

Where you (and others) decide to stop typing will be critical for paid search advertising. If it was early (e.g. ‘paris apartments’), it could mean a reduction in the traffic to long tail-searches, which would increase the price of short-tails, making it difficult for small, niche advertisers to compete with the big brands.

If it was late (e.g. ‘paris apartments for sale luxury’), then there could still be hope for the long-tail, with click through rates and conversion rates possibly rising with the improved quality of searches.

Exactly how people change their behaviour when searching will be crucial in determining the effect on paid search advertising.

2. Will be people get lazy with their mouse?

Another critical behavioural factor is how people change the way they use their mouse. Prior to Google Instant, once I typed a query into Google and hit ‘search’, I tended to grab my mouse and browse through the results until I found something of relevance. If nothing satisfied my requirements, I would refine my search until I found what I was looking for.

Now, with Google Instant, there is no need to scroll through results with my mouse. I would simply keep typing, or change what I have typed, until I see relevant results on the search page. As soon as I see something which grabs my attention, I would let go of your keyboard, grab my mouse, and click through that listing. I don’t let go of my keyboard until I have already decided where I am going to click. With Google Instant, my mouse is no longer used for browsing through the results – it’s only used for clicking on what I have already decided to click on.

If my behaviour – of only using the mouse to click, rather than to browse – becomes the norm with Google Instant, this could have massive implications for paid search advertising.

If scrolling with the mouse through search results becomes a redundant activity, only above-the-fold ads in the top positions will have any chance of being clicked. Advertisers with ads in the lower positions (such as 7, 8, 9 and 10), will see their click through rate (CTR) fall considerably, and to retain a decent click volume, will likely increase their cost per click (CPC) keyword bids in an effort to appear above the fold.

Over time, this will raise the cost per click (CPC) prices of ads in the top positions. It is therefore likely to be smaller advertisers – who cannot afford to compete with the big brands – who are likely to suffer. Big brands will simply welcome the extra traffic.

Worst Case Scenario

Although it is difficult to predict exactly how people will adapt to Google Instant, the worst case scenario for pay per click advertising is scary. People accept shorter phrases, and only click on ads in the top few positions. Long-tail keywords fall in volume, and the price of short-tail, generic keywords rise considerably. Smaller advertisers struggle to compete.

Best Case Scenario

The best case scenario is somewhat more comforting. The comprehensive search suggestions of Autocomplete and the ability to preview search results mean people enter more specific, detailed search queries. Long-tail search volume remains unchanged, or even rises as a result. And since users now see search results as they search, impressions are of a higher quality, so click through rates (CTR) and conversion rates rise.

Likely Scenario

While it’s too early to determine exactly what affect Google Instant is likely to have on pay per click advertising, it will no doubt change the way we search. But as long as Google’s Autocomplete continues to provide a wide selection of long-tail search suggestions (e.g. ‘paris apartments for sale luxury’), I don’t think the long-tail is in any immediate danger.

I think what is more likely, however, is a reduction in searches for phrases which are not in the Autocomplete list of search suggestions. I think people will learn to accept the search suggestions presented to them, and reduce the number of creative ad hoc ‘outside the box’ searches. As soon as you’ve reached the end of the road in the list of search suggestions, you would accept the suggestion as your search. I think only a small minority of people will go on to refine their search further, typing something even more specific as ‘paris apartments for sale luxury 2 bedrooms’.

Whether the long-tail is dead, and whether competition is focused on the top few ad positions, in my opinion is down to the extent to which Google continue to expand their range of long-tail Autocomplete suggestions. As as long as people continue to demand ever more specialised search results, and do so with ever more specific search queries, I think the long-tail is still very much alive.

With SSL, you can search and browse in full confidence, knowing that your personal information and browsing habits will never find its way to unscrupulous third-parties. When you click on a Google link, and visit an external site, because your browsing is encrypted, the site you visit will not be able to see that you came from Google – nor will they be able to see what you searched for. Advertisers therefore can’t use your personal information to provide you with ads for things you don’t need or want.

Sounds great, doesn’t it? And the more secure we can make the web, the better, right?

Not exactly.

It is only once we consider the implications for the web businesses that we realise the sheer importance of such analytical data. It is only when this data is threatened to be taken away, that we realise that SSL encryption might not be in the public’s best interests.

Let’s see why.

The Importance of Analytics

Analytics is not all bad. Okay – it does let businesses collect information about your browsing habits, your search words, your referring URLs, your city and your number of return visits, which you could argue is more information than you would like to hand over.

But we need to realise that such anonymous information is central to the efficient allocation of online resources. It is only because we freely hand over such information to website owners, that websites are as user-friendly – and online prices are as low – as they are today. None of this would have been possible if web businesses were blindfolded.

Analytics provides a market – an invisible hand which allows resources to flow to the areas which deliver the best return. It prevents wastage, and helps to efficiently connect buyers to sellers.

To illustrate how the data you hand over is the lifeblood of such a healthy online economy, let’s imagine a world where SSL is standard across the whole internet. Every page is encrypted, and none of your data is handed over.

Scenario 1 – No Keyword Data (SSL)

Suppose in this SSL world, a retailer of men’s and women’s gifts wants to know how his online marketing campaigns are working. He logs in to Google Analytics, and all he sees is a visit counter (2,500 visits), and perhaps some information on total sales (20) and total revenue ($10,000). He can’t see where these 20 sales came from; nor can he see which keywords generated those sales.

But he does know that 20 sales are coming from somewhere, so at least some of his online marketing efforts are working. And since he’s only spent $1,000 on his entire online marketing strategy, and is therefore making a healthy $9,000 gross profit, he keeps everything rolling along and heads out to lunch with his head held high.

Similarly, another gift retailer adopts a similar online marketing strategy. She generates exactly the same amount of visitors (2,500), sales (20) and revenue ($10,000), for exactly the same spend. Again, her gross profit is $9,000.

All good and well, you might think. But what could have been if keyword data was handed over to retailer 1 and retailer 2?

Scenario 2 – Keyword Data

While working his way through a delicious Penne al Forno, retailer 1 hears talk that it is now possible to see keywords in analytics. In his excitement, he cuts his lunch short and hurries back to his computer to log into analytics. Immediately, he can see that half of his visits came from “gifts for men”, and half came from “gifts for women”. No surprises there – after all, retailer 1 sells gifts for both men and women.

But look at the conversion rates for each keyword! For whatever reason, the keyword “gifts for men” is delivering the majority of his sales, revenue and profit. “Gifts for women” is somehow failing miserably.

It doesn’t take long before retailer 2 also hears word of the great news. In her similar excitement, she also logs into analytics to find that the keyword “gifts for women” is bringing in the majority of her sales.

Scenario 3 – After Optimisation

Retailer 1 then decides to take money out of his poor-performing “gifts for women” keyword, and invest it in the successful “gifts for men” keyword. Within a week, he has increased his his overall sales from 20 to 32, and his gross profit from $9,000 to $14,000, all for the same $1,000 spend.

Retailer 2 also decides to do some similar optimisation. She takes money out of the wasteful “gifts for men” keywords, and ploughs it into “gifts for women”. Her sales increase from 20 to 26, and her gross profit increases from $9,000 to $12,000. Again, all for the same $1,000 spend.

Efficient Allocation of Resources

Retailers 1 and 2 don’t know it, but what they’ve done is extremely clever. Their individual actions (and the individual actions of thousands of other retailers) have helped allocate marketing spend to the most efficient channels. Both have seen a significant reduction in wastage, and large increases in profit.

Assuming the gift industry is competitive (which is largely true due to the sheer number of ecommerce retailers), these increased profits will gradually filter through to customers in the form of lower prices.

This ‘invisible hand’, or free market of online marketing, is only made possible with analytical data. Without years of such analytical efficiency, helping to connect buyers and sellers as quickly and cheaply as possible, there is no way online prices would be as low as they are today. There is no way I would have been able to buy a pack of six iPhone screen protectors with free delivery from Hong Kong for only $0.99.

Is Privacy Overrated?

Of course, everyone has the right to protect their privacy. Measures such as SSL will prevent third-parties from seeing your search terms, analysing your browsing behaviour and perusing your social media habits without your consent. And Google’s new SSL page is undoubtedly a response to our increasing desire to keep our online activities private.

But so long as measures are taken to ensure the information you hand over is anonymous and not personally identifiable, should we really demand this increased privacy? If letting advertisers build a database of anonymous stats is all it takes to improve the online experiences and ultimately lead to lower prices for consumers, is handing over anonymous data really such a bad thing? Perhaps we have forgotten what analytics and measurement has done for us, and need to realise that data collection and optimisation is actually in the best interests for everyone.