If you follow my blog, you’ve probably seen discussion of the concept of the “third page of search“. It’s a term to illustrate the area to which local media needs to pay particular attention. The entry search box = first page, Search Engine Result Page = second page, and third page is where the SERP click takes you.

Recently, a couple of notable bloggers have begun referring to the “second click”, very much a connected concept.

Tadoca founder & AOL Ad Executive, Dave Morgan, authored “The Fight for the Second Click“.

John Battelle profiles this concept in discussing Google’s KNOL announcement, aiming to assimilate the enormous click volume currently enjoyed by Wikipedia.

Summarizing the driving motive, Dave Morgan describes Google’s appetite for click traffic:

…once they have monetized all of the first clicks that they can, they need to start chasing second clicks.

…If they can’t find more in search, or more on contextual network sites, they need to create their own. Plus, the more “second clicks” they own, the more money they can keep — and the less they have to share.

The evolution of the Search Results page is one of the most important things to be watching in 2008. It defines the “ad product space” evolution for SEM services. Equally importantly it defines the competitive evolution needed by IYP sites to sustain a meaningful share of the value chain.

SERP evolution

The most recent major changes to Google’s search results presentation/navigation commenced a process of morphing the SERP into a multi-click experience - aiming to better serve a growing challenge in retaining search success across the complexities of new media types AND local.

This shift introduced embedded local search results into it’s own special section in the SERP, which leads the user to an evolving set of local navigation “sub-pages” in the SERP experience. This was a no-brainer move. Google Local was a bit of a user experience orphan that needed to be better integrated with the core search box experience. It improves the user’s ability to get to the right reference information about a named business or category.

At the recent Google Local Market Symposium, Product Management indicated the intent to offer some level of fixed price monthly local placement in 2008. Naturally, details were scant, and it’s difficult to know exactly what or when to expect things. My hunch is this will follow the theme of improving the content and geo-presentation of each participating business. The reality of poor geocoding and sketchy and outdated web profile data on small businesses is well understood in the Googleplex.

The admission by Google of the ad product need for small businesses to have more simplified models of search traffic participation is really important.

The kind of questions I’m asking myself as I watch the Google local SERP evolution include:

• How will ad placement opportunities evolve in business name and category geosearch result presentation?
• How will map ad placement evolve and integrate?
• How will placement on Google Mobile Search evolve?
• Will the page evolve in the direction of filtered content search, a la Google Real Estate or Product Search?

I expect Google to keep methodically plugging away at the problem and opportunity in scaled basic ad placement, aiming to close in on the content gap it has versus focused and comprehensive directory search sites. Richer shopping and specialized/vertical search experiences still feels like they are off the immediate radar of Google’s SERP evolution for Local. If you contrast the same Real Estate example with a search service of a Move.com or Trulia, you see what I mean. Google has been working for years on real estate search, where structured content is more accessible. Richer vertical search and shopping oriented utility will be key to evolving IYP product differentiation in the coming couple of years.

Posted by Perry on Tuesday, January 8th, 2008 at 5:28 am.