In case you missed it last week, the iPad 3, now known simply as ‘the new iPad’, was announced during the Apple keynote conference (and has now been released). There was much speculation and rumour about what upgrades would be included in the latest version.

What hasn’t been included are USB ports and flash support, and let’s be honest, it’s never going to happen. However, there are a bunch of great new features that are sure to make iPad 1 and 2 owners envious.

For each feature I will give a brief overview of what is included and then explain how this will affect advertisers.

Retina Display

The biggest update to the iPad is the inclusion of the Retina display, which provides four times more pixels than the iPad 2. What this means is the resolution is much higher (2048 x 1536) and provides a more crisp and beautiful experience. Some of you might have an iPhone 4 or 4S, these have the retina display too.

Increased resolution means display ads will be crisper and more visually appealing. This once again brings up the issue of flash support with the iPad. If you’re targeting mobile and tablet users, be sure to make your display ads in an image format, rather than in flash. If you have the budget for two sets of ads, creating a display campaign targeting the Apple operating system, iOS, will allow you to only display image ads for Apple products. On this flip side of this, creating campaigns for Android and other operating systems will still allow you to show flash ads on these devices.

Another thing for advertisers is to think about is how their mobile/tablet landing pages will display on higher resolutions.

Updated Hardware

The updated A5X chip with quad-core graphics provides more power to the iPad than ever before. The extra power is needed due to the increased screen resolution, but is this extra power going to drain the battery faster? Well not according to Apple, in their promotional material it states that you can now get 10 hours battery usage. This will still depend greatly on what your primary usage of the iPad is.

The increased processing power will allow advertisers to create more hardware demanding landing pages.

iSight Camera

The updated camera can shoot 5-megapixel still images and record video in 1080p. As with most cameras, a higher megapixel count is good, but it isn’t the defining factor of a quality camera. The lenses of cameras play a big part in the quality of pictures and videos. The iPad lens has had an overhaul and now features five elements and the hybrid infrared filter.

With higher quality of cameras on phones and tablets and the increasing demand for better quality customer service, including video to video, this face-to-face customer support could improve your customer satisfaction levels.

4G LTE Support

What does 4G LTE mean to the average iPad user? Faster download and upload speeds! That is if you live in a country which supports 4G LTE, are on a phone network which supports it AND have the 4G version of the iPad. If you meet all these criteria, then this feature is great for you!

With increased download speeds, the new iPad will allow users to view websites faster. This means mobile/tablet sites can include larger files and videos, allowing advertisers to experiment with larger landing pages.

Dictation

Many had speculated that the new iPad would feature Siri.  Instead, we get dictation. This feature allows you to write an email, send a text or search the web with voice commands. There are a number of apps out there which already allow voice dictation, but this feature now fully integrates with the phone.

The impact of this on advertisers isn’t as obvious as it may first appear. With the addition of voice searching, it will be more important than ever to have a brand name which is easy to pronounce and easily picked up by the voice recognition software. Whilst it may be too late for some businesses, this is definitely something to consider when introducing a new brand or product.

AirPlay

AirPlay allows you to stream what is on your iPad straight to your speakers and TV. This feature lets you view photos you’ve taken, or movies you’ve downloaded from iTunes and view it in the comfort of your living room. The other feature is ‘mirror’, which allows you to display exactly what’s on the iPad screen on your TV, including apps and other such things.  In order to do this you will need to purchase the ‘Apple TV’ hardware for your home entertainment system.

We now have to worry about how ads appear not only on tablets, mobile devices and computer but on TV! Depending on what devices you’re targeting, it might be valuable seeing what your display ads and website look like when ‘mirrored’ on TVs from the iPad.

So that brings us to the end of the new iPad features and how it can affect advertising. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see an iPhone 5 come out this year with more updated features. And as always, the advertisers will then need to reconsider their mobile advertising strategy.

Coming from an advertising background, I love nothing more than sexy branding. By sexy  branding I don’t mean underwear models on giant billboards or TV ads seeping with innuendo – although done well, these can both be effective! Sexy branding for me is cohesive branding. Sexy brands have confidence; they know who they are and don’t try to pretend to be something they are not. By this definition, any business can have sexy branding. In an already overcrowded market, a brand’s self-awareness and individuality will set it apart.

So tell me, is your brand sexy? Ask yourself the hard questions, answer them honestly:

1. Who is your target market?

So often we ask this of the brands that we work with and they say something like ’People of all ages, male or female’. Now of course, this may apply to some brands, but not many. Try using other demographic markers, such as economic position, personality traits and common interests to gage who your ideal customer might be. It will make reaching them and converting them so much easier. Global domination will come after you’ve established a strong base to work with, so don’t rush it!

2. Now that you know who your market is, where can they find you, and you find them?

Be honest here, and do your research! Do your demographic spend hours online reading blogs and interacting through social media? Or do they use the internet for email and banking and spend their leisure time watching television? Knowing where to talk to your market at a time when they are ready to listen is key to effective communication.

3. Does your brand personality truly reflect your brand?

Test your marketing on your target market. Are they seeing your branding and getting a snapshot of what they can expect from an interaction with the business? There are many simple ways to project an image to potential customers – make sure yours is being accurately portrayed and received.

4. Are your customers showing brand loyalty?

How much of your business is referral business? A business with strong repeat or referral business will thrive. Delving into social media with a clearly defined strategy may be a great option for you. Also, reward customers for referrals and repeat business so they know that you appreciate it.

5. Is your brand a leader or a follower?

There are success stories in both leading and following in different industries, but which are you? Are you happy being where you are? If not, what would it take for you to make a change? A great start to being a leading brand is an information-rich and authoritative website. Build one, inject it with content that you are confident the market needs and wants to know about, in a format in which they can ingest, share it, and you’ll be LOLing!

6. When moving your brand online, have you decided the manner in which you will talk with your target market?

Online social forums are more about light-hearted discussion and entertainment, rather than a hard sell. Simple things like the language you use are a constant reflection of your brand – so be aware.

7. Are you being creative with your communication or is your message lost in a sea of advertising?

Advertising is everywhere. We are constantly inundated with messages, so many in fact that we simply cannot see and react to them all. How different is the way in which you talk to your market?  There are so many innovative and impressive ways to break-through the marketing clutter; it may just be a matter of thinking outside the box!

So, get to know who you are and show it to the people that matter, through strong, cohesive marketing and the world will be your bivalve mollusc (Thanks Wiki, the sexiest dictionary I know!).

Since that article, the much-hyped Microsoft-Yahoo! deal has fallen through (most probably for good now) and Yahoo! have signed an $800 million non-exclusive search advertising deal with Google that will see Google ads appearing in Yahoo!’s search results.

This deal basically means that Microsoft is really the only player left who can seriously have a tilt at Google. All the other players are either too small to be a genuine threat or have some vested interest in Google.

Yahoo! is now one of the latter. The problem that Yahoo! has is that by signing this deal, they have effectively conceded the search advertising war to Google, who maintain a massive market share of around 80%.

However, it’s important to note that this is not the first time that Yahoo! have outsourced to Google. Google supplied Yahoo!’s search results from 2000 to 2004 before Yahoo! engineered their own search engine. Microsoft’s MSN search was likewise outsourced for a number of years to LookSmart, Inktomi and AltaVista before they too decided to create their own engine in late 2004.

So while most consumers believe that Yahoo and MSN have been in the search game for years, and are regarded as the two ‘other players’ in the ‘Big 3,’ both have really only been producing their own search results for about four years. And now that Yahoo have gone back to Google for search engine advertising, it raises questions about whether or not even Yahoo! think they can match it with Google’s AdWords program.

Which brings us back to Microsoft as the only player who has not got some interest in Google’s success. There are a couple of signs that suggest Microsoft may be planning an assault on the Google fortress. The first is the breakaway of the MSN search engine to the Live search engine which operates on a cleaner search-oriented feel (much like Google’s) as opposed to the web portal style of MSN and Yahoo!. This move has allowed Microsoft to frame its Live search as a separate entity that is focused on search, something that Google used very early on to gain credibility.

The announcement of Microsoft’s plans to take on the realm of display advertising is another indication that Microsoft is mobilising its forces. Microsoft AdCenter, while currently no match for the AdWords juggernaut, is in a prime position to receive a makeover and move rapidly into the display advertising field.

However, if Microsoft plan to seriously take on Google they need to move quickly as Google’s acquisitions of DoubleClick, and to a lesser extent YouTube, suggest that Google is keen to move in on this new market as well.

So, whilst there is no doubt that Google is by far and away the leader in terms of market share for both search queries and advertising dollars, there are signs emerging that suggest the Microsoft giant is not ready to lose the search war just yet, although they have to be ready for a long battle if they want to pinch the crown.

Round Two – Google Knockout… but is there movement on the canvas?

The agreement, which still has to be approved by anti-trust authorities, is an $800 Million (US) deal which will see Google’s paid advertisements appear on Yahoo’s search results.

Assuming the deal is approved, and I have the impression that it will as both AOL and Ask.com are on similar arrangements with Google, then this will mean that advertisers who are signed up with the Google AdWords program will be able to get their ads to display on Yahoo’s search pages.

This begs the question, if advertisers are able to sign up to the AdWords program and control the placement of their ads in Google, Yahoo, Ask.com & AOL, why would advertisers then sign up for Yahoo Search Marketing, which is limited to just Yahoo searches?

The answer is simple… they wouldn’t.

When you throw in the fact that Yahoo Search Marketing requires a $30 deposit and pre-pay billing, Google’s AdWords becomes even more of a clear option. To make the contest even more one-sided, Google offer a whole raft of extras to assist you with your campaigns including Google Analytics, WebMaster Tools and the new Google AdPlanner.

Yahoo claim that their Search Marketing program will continue to operate in tandem to Google’s ad placements but how long will Yahoo’s users put up with double the amount of ads? My guess is that Yahoo’s Search Marketing program will simply be phased out over 12 months or so. The other more cynical option is that Yahoo will simply drop its Search Marketing program as soon as the deal is approved, and are only keeping the program running to help get it rubber stamped.

So why did Yahoo! make this deal? Quite simply… money.

Google’s share of online advertising revenue is around 80% (depending on who you believe) but Yahoo’s is only around 5%. Despite Yahoo’s best efforts they have failed miserably at stealing any of Google’s market share. In fact, they are actually losing ground.

This left Yahoo with two options; makeover their own Search Marketing program to be better than Google’s AdWords, or take the AOL and Ask.com path and simply outsource to Google. They chose the latter and one can hardly blame them. This new deal guarantees Yahoo! a stream of online advertising income but tightens Google’s grasp on the search marketing market.

It’s no wonder that this kind of deal has drawn interest from the anti-trust authorities but if it is approved (as I suspect it will) then there is strong evidence that this is the end for Yahoo’s Search Marketing program. Once again it looks as though it’s going to be Google v Microsoft.

So the question then becomes, can anyone topple Google? In the late 90′s Yahoo! was the number one, but Google looked at Yahoo’s weaknesses and created a cleaner search engine that supposedly delivered better search results. But can anyone do it again?

Google continue to go from strength to strength, and their reach is unrivalled. Their advertising network includes AOL, Ask.com and now Yahoo and their recent acquisitions of DoubleClick and Youtube have only broadened their market.

With the much-hyped Yahoo! and Microsoft deal falling through, and Yahoo’s subsequent search marketing deal with Google, who is left to take on the giant of search? Let’s go through the main competitors:

Yahoo!

Currently sitting in a distant second in terms of both advertising and search query share, many claim that Yahoo’s search algorithm is actually superior to Google’s. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, as the vast majority of users have spoken with their clicks and head to Google for its clean feel. The big thing that Google has over Yahoo is the way Google is able to separate out each of its products to keep that clean feel. Yahoo pack everything they offer into one homepage, which can make it hard to identify what their primary focus is. As a result, many users wonder whether Yahoo’s search is being given the focus it deserves. Yahoo will certainly remain profitable, as they have a loyal fan base that swear by it, but I just can’t see them storming the Google fortress, particularly now they are relying on their ad network.

MSN/Live

If Yahoo is a distant second, then Microsoft’s Live Search is back an eternity in third place. Again, however, there are those out there who believe Microsoft’s search to be better, but I am a definite sceptic on this one. For Microsoft to really succeed in search they need a massive overhaul, and massive overhauls are not really Microsoft’s style. More than likely Microsoft will just let Live run its course, as it doesn’t really seem to have the desire to be number one in search, or else it probably would have put more emphasis on it’s deal with Yahoo rather than letting it slip by the wayside.

AOL, Ask, etc

The old players in the market. Most of these engines still get a decent run of traffic, but most are also relying on Google advertising deals to keep them profitable. These guys are not real challengers for the crown.

Mahalo

Mahalo is an interesting one. Mahalo is Hawaiian for thank you, and the premise behind this start-up is that it is the web’s only human-powered search engine. That is, its search results are not driven by algorithm’s but by human generated results pages. To me it seems like Wikipedia and Dogpile rolled into one, as the user is able to search all the various other engines if Mahalo does not have a page created. I don’t think the concept of a human-powered search engine can work, particularly when it comes to updating it constantly at the speed of web. Wikipedia works but I don’t see Mahalo taking off. It is useful however, if you want to search all the major search engines (and Wikipedia, Youtube, Flickr) all in one go. Other than that I don’t see it ever matching Google. Google’s algorithm’s refresh daily, which is almost impossible for a human-powered search engine to match.

Clusty

Another meta approach to search. Just like Dogpile, Clusty attempts to rank results by aggregating results from other search engines. Once generated however, Clusty clusters results together into categories of results. This is a useful tool but won’t have Google shaking.

Other Small Start-ups

Quintura, Blinkx, Powerset, Kosmix, the list goes on. All these players however, are only targeting tiny market niches, market niches that Google could quite easily swat away with one extra feature to their own search results. The other problem most of these smaller players have is they lack the resources to operate their own search algorithm’s and many of the newcomers rely on refining a Google search.

The Verdict

Here’s the problem as I see it for the other players attempting to usurp Google; all of them either rely on Google’s search is some way or are targeting niche markets that Google could themselves cover by throwing a few million at a new Google product.

Google have already done this with email. Google took a search-based approach to internet-based email and eroded Microsoft’s Hotmail monopoly in a flash, so these small niche players had better watch their back. If Microsoft can be beaten so easily, where does that leave the little guy?

But all the big players (including Yahoo thanks to this new deal) are relying on Google in some way either for search results or search advertising. All, that is, except Microsoft. Microsoft’s Live is the one major search engine out there not dependent on Google’s algorithms or advertising dollars.

Over the last few years Google has continually stripped away Microsoft’s stranglehold on all things digital, and maybe the time is right for the old dog to get angry and strike back.

Alas, however, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen…

SEM Tip #1

When it comes to managing a search engine marketing (SEM) campaign online in Google AdWords or one of the other search marketing programs, too many businesses get carried away with click-through-rates (CTR).

But before I get into why click-through rates (CTR) are overrated, let’s just clarify what a CTR is. A Click-Through-Rate, or CTR, is a measure of the percentage of people who click on your ad after viewing it.

Typical CTR’s are often well below 1% for most online campaigns, but what is it about them that as soon as they reach 2-3% everyone starts giving each other high-fives even when sales are not affected? So let’s go through the pros and cons of CTRs.

Firstly, CTR’s can be used as a guide to how effective your ad text is. Quite often, the more appealing your ad text is, the higher your CTR will be. But what if you’re in a very specific industry, say ‘neon lighting Brisbane.’ As part of your campaign it would be perfectly normal to include broader keywords such a ‘Brisbane lighting’ in the hope that people who search for lighting in Brisbane will be then interested in neon lighting. However, this is where your CTR can be misleading.

For instance, say my headline for the ad is ‘Brisbane Lighting’ – A large majority of users who have searched “Brisbane lighting” might think this is a relevant ad, so I get a higher CTR. The problem is that they click on the ad, bumping up my CTR and costing me money, only to find when they get to the site that I only sell neon lights. This is a waste…but my CTR looks good right?

On the other side of the coin, if my headline for the ad is ‘Brisbane Neon Lighting,’ all those users who have searched for “Brisbane lighting” will see my ad but only those who are interested in neon lighting will click on it. This means that I get a lower CTR but in this case that’s actually a good thing as I get better quality traffic.

Now, it is well publicised that Google, when ranking ads, don’t just take into account how much you bid, but also your quality score. One of the things that makes up the quality score is your CTR. However, your quality score is unique to each separate keyword, so having a low CTR on a broad term such as ‘Brisbane lighting’ does not affect your quality score on your more targeted keywords such as ‘Brisbane neon lighting,’ so there’s no real advantage to CTR there.

The other downside of having a high CTR is that you use up your advertising budget very quickly. A low CTR has the added advantage of giving you great exposure, as you get more impressions on your ads before your budget is used up. This helps immensely with brand recognition.

So at the end of all this you may be wondering if I can’t trust CTR, what can I trust? Some people put their faith in conversion rates, but this again has many of the same pitfalls. The best statistic to track is cost-per-conversion, which details how much it costs per sale or lead. This is done by the insertion of a snippet of HTML code on your ‘Thankyou for Purchasing’ (or likewise) page. A professional SEM management company can set your business up a conversion tracking AdWords account and manage it throughout the course of a campaign, continually adjusting all facets of the campaign for best performance.

I guess the key thing to take from this today is that when it comes to your online marketing campaigns, don’t worry too much about the percentages; but look at the dollar amounts that it is costing your business per sale to advertise online.

This is evident by the fact that marketing positions are down by 26% across Australia (BRW Magazine) as many businesses look to cut the fat from their advertising dollars.

But there is a cheap alternative to traditional advertising mediums… search.

There are two kinds of ways businesses can spend money on search. One is through search engine optimisation (SEO) where professional optimisers improve your website’s position in search engine rankings. The other is search engine marketing (SEM) which are the paid ads you will see above and to the right of natural search results.

There are a number of reasons why search engine spending is a wise alternative. Let’s do a quick comparison:

A full page ad in many print media publications costs between $6000-10,000 for just one run. And this is occuring at a time when many businesses are noting a distinct drop in conversion to sales from print media.

One of the clients I manage has a Google AdWords budget of $90 per day. One of the great things about investing in SEM is the ease with which detailed statistics can be obtained and sales conversions tracked. Here are the basic facts from four weeks of the AdWords campaign:

• Around $2500 was pumped through AdWords in that time. This compares quite well to the $6000 that would have been splurged on a print media ad.
• The Ads generated about 180,000 impressions. That means 180,000 people actually had the ad appear on their screens. Even if the readership of the print publication was 200,000, this does not mean that 200,000 people saw the ad, especially if the ad is buried on page 37.
• As a result of these impressions, over 1200 visitors were sent directly to the site.
• This translated into 350 conversions at an average cost per conversion of around $6.50. With the print media ads, it is often very difficult, if not impossible, to tell exactly how many sales have been generated.

So when we sit back now and look at the final figures, this particular client spent half as much money and generated around the same number, if not more, views of the ad. But the thing is, they know exactly how much they spent, how many views they had, and most importantly, how much it cost them per sale to undertake the advertising.

It is this combination of factors that makes search such an attractive alternative to traditional marketing.

But SEM is just half of the picture, as that $6000-10000 can also buy your company a whole lot of SEO. By putting that money into professional SEO you’ll get around 12 months of continual optimisation for Google and the other major search engines.

This means 12 months, not one print run, of potential customers seeing your site up the top of search engine results, and that translates into sales.

So despite many business’ financials being quite tight around Australia at the moment, SEO and SEM remain highly lucrative options as their relatively cheap nature and ease of tracking make them a smart solution for all businesses.

But why then is everyone so sceptical about Microsoft’s prospects? Why is the Microsoft juggernaut all of a sudden vulnerable to this relative rookie company with big dreams? The answer is simple; Google do search better and they have the market in the palm of their hand.

Microsoft’s MSN/Live search and Yahoo’s search are just not making inroads against Google’s tried and tested simple approach. Google has a no-fuss approach to search. Their homepage is simple, results are clearly displayed and most users have faith in the Google algorithm’s ability to deliver relevant search results. Live and Yahoo! have not worked this out or refuse to blatantly copy Google’s premise.

The name Microsoft once struck fear into the hearts of all other digital companies, because it seemed that no matter how well you did something, Microsoft could throw millions at it and take your market.

But Google has changed all that. Microsoft have been trying for years now to replicate Google’s success online, but according to BRW Magazine, have only managed around 5% of US search revenue market share, compared to Google’s whopping 77%. Google has humbled the once un-toppable giant.

The secret to Google’s success is that, out of all the big search engines, they have the most conspicuous ads. Live and Yahoo! both have ads cluttering their homepages whereas Google only display ads in search results and their AdWords quality score algorithm keeps their ads fairly relevant as well. For this reason, a search results page in Google does not “feel” like an advertising billboard, which can be the case in other search engines.

So that brings us to now, where Microsoft is once again claiming that they are ready to take the mantle as the net’s premier search engine. Microsoft are currently working on capturing the display ad market, with development teams working overtime on technology for video and banner ads that display more relevant ads based on a user’s browsing patterns.

Of course Google are not going to sit back and wait for Microsoft to gain ground on them, and their recent acquisitions of DoubleClick and Youtube suggest they are already going on the offensive.

So who’s going to win? Microsoft or Google? From what I’m seing the answer is Google. Google have the market cornered and are not going to give it up without a fight.

One of the reasons I believe that Google will win (this round) is that they have quite remarkably managed to dodge the ‘big bad company’ tag. It is very common for large corporations to become disliked in the court of public opinion because they are greedy or ‘out to get us.’ It seems that no matter how big Google get, they are still liked by the public. This can probably be traced back to the way Google manages its staff, who work in more of a resort than an office. In the search engine wars, Google are the good guys whilst Microsoft are the baddies.

Microsoft will undoubtedly keep trying, they always do. Search engine advertising is too big a market for Microsoft to give in, but if this new display ad platform is once again outperformed by Google, they may have to go crawling back to Yahoo. Microsoft have already hinted that they may revisit the idea by putting the merger decision to a shareholder vote, indicating that even inside their own ranks they have doubts over their own ability to beat Google.

My gut feeling says that Microsoft and Yahoo will be together sooner rather than later. If and when this happens it is critical that they do not try and copy Google, but rather come up with a new kind of search experience, that delivers the most relevant search results (including ads) and offers more for Internet users, but I won’t be holding my breath.

Round One – Google Knockout…