Category: Opinion

Win Competitor Traffic With Demand Gen Conquesting

I have seen traditional competitor campaigns turn into expensive click traps. When someone searches for a competitor’s brand, they are often already close to buying, which means my ad can become little more than a brief detour on their way to converting somewhere else.

That does not mean I have to give up on competitor-aware audiences. Instead of relying only on competitor brand bidding, I can use Demand Gen campaigns and negative-intent keywords to reach those buyers more efficiently, often at a lower cost.

Demand Gen: Reaching the right audience for less

Before I focus on negative-intent keywords, I like to look at Demand Gen because it gives me another way to reach people who may not know my brand yet but are already showing signs of interest in my market.

For Demand Gen to work well, I need two things: strong targeting and strong creative. Within that targeting, custom audience segments and lookalike audiences are essential.

Custom segment targeting lets me reach people who have searched for specific terms on Google or who show certain interests and purchase intentions. It is also one of the most practical ways I can get in front of users researching my competitors without paying the higher price of a search click.

When I create a new audience inside a Demand Gen campaign, custom segments are one of the first targeting options I see, right after the audience name.

From there, I choose the option for People who searched for any of these terms on Google and add as many relevant competitors as I can. This helps me reach a highly relevant audience across Google’s inventory at a lower cost than a traditional search network click.

If I am not sure which competitors to include, I start by typing my main product or service into Google Ads and reviewing who appears. Those businesses are usually my primary competitors, and depending on the networks I opt into, my ads can appear across YouTube, Discover, and Gmail.

Designing conquesting landing pages for Demand Gen

When I use Demand Gen for conquesting, I need a landing page built specifically for that audience. I want to highlight my key differentiators, show social proof, and make it obvious why my product or service deserves consideration.

The click is only the first step. Once someone lands on my page, the offer has to be clear, specific, and aligned with the ad they just clicked. I need to explain the value thoroughly and guide the visitor toward a call to action that matches the promise I made in the ad.

Negative-intent conquesting: Targeting competitor weaknesses

But Demand Gen is not always the right starting point. If I do not have strong image or video assets, I may be better off staying closer to the search network.

Because high-quality creative tends to perform best across Demand Gen placements, search can make more sense when those assets are not available. That is where negative-intent conquesting becomes useful.

Most advertisers understand traditional competitor search campaigns, but many overlook the people who are not simply searching for a competitor. They are searching for alternatives, comparisons, cheaper options, or signs that another company can solve the problem better.

I often see this happen during the consideration phase. A user may search for terms like “companies like X,” “companies cheaper than X,” or, for branded products, “dupe for X.” Not every variation will have enough volume to bid on, but these searches reveal where serious comparison research is happening.

Building campaigns around competitor pain points

If I know a competitor has a reputation for poor customer service, I might test keywords such as “customer service complaints for [competitor].” I would keep this focused in a single ad group with closely related keyword variations.

In the ad copy, I would focus on what makes my customer service stronger, faster, or more helpful. Because of trademark policies, I would avoid naming the competitor directly in the ad text and instead emphasize the benefit I can prove.

Traditional competitor campaigns focus on bidding against a brand name. Negative-intent conquesting focuses on the weakness behind the search. The audience already knows the competitor, but they are actively looking for a better option.

I can also pair this approach with a separate custom audience, which lets me reach people searching for these alternatives across Google’s networks.

For this to work after the click, the landing page matters just as much as the keyword and ad. If my ad promises a better solution to poor service, high prices, or another competitor weakness, the landing page has to validate that claim and present a unique value proposition that directly addresses the concern.

Target competitor audiences before the decision is made

The biggest challenge with traditional competitor campaigns is not always the competitor. It is timing.

When someone searches for a competitor’s brand name, they may have already narrowed their options and moved close to a decision. That is why competitor keyword campaigns can become expensive and hard to scale profitably.

Demand Gen and negative-intent conquesting help me approach the same audience from different angles. Demand Gen lets me reach potential customers before they commit to a brand, while negative-intent conquesting reaches them when they are actively questioning their current options.

My goal is simple: I want to reach potential customers when they are most open to considering a different choice. If I can do that with the right targeting, message, and landing page, competitor traffic becomes much easier to win without overspending on traditional brand bidding.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

July 3, 2026
Why I Stop Positioning AI as a People Replacement

I think one of the biggest mistakes in AI marketing is positioning a product as a replacement for people. That message can win attention in the short term, but I believe it quietly drains trust over time.

This is a little different from what I usually write about, but it matters. The way we talk about AI shapes how customers, employees, executives, and markets respond to it.

In this memo, I want to focus on three things: why “substitution positioning” feels powerful at first but weakens a brand later, what the data says about whether AI is actually replacing people, and how I think companies should position AI instead.

The cardinal sin of positioning in the AI era is replacement. I call it substitution positioning. It is tempting because it sounds bold, efficient, and disruptive. But over time, it creates anxiety, skepticism, and credibility problems.

We have seen this pattern already. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei predicted that software engineering jobs could disappear within 6 to 12 months as models began doing most or all of what software engineers do end to end. Yet demand for software engineers has continued to look strong.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman also predicted that many customer support jobs would go away because AI could handle that work better. Soon after, customer service hiring began outpacing the broader job market.

I understand why fear works as a marketing tool. The fear of being replaced gets attention fast. It got me, too. When powerful AI models gained traction, I worried about my own future. But when I still see AI companies hiring copywriters, SEOs, engineers, and support teams, I sleep better.

Fear sells because it taps into fight-or-flight. Layoffs make that story even louder. They let companies frame cost-cutting as innovation and make the replacement narrative feel more real than it may actually be.

But I do not think the facts support the clean replacement story. In New York, companies can indicate when mass layoffs are caused by technological innovation or automation. In one reported period, more than 160 companies filed mass layoffs affecting roughly 28,300 workers, and not one chose AI as the reason. That list included companies such as Amazon and Goldman Sachs.

Researchers at Yale also studied employment data from the Current Population Survey over 33 months and found no evidence of job displacement from AI. To me, the pattern looks less like instant replacement and more like the earlier waves of computers and the internet changing how work gets done.

That is why I keep coming back to this point: stop trying to make replacement happen. It is not happening in the simple, dramatic way many AI narratives suggest.

AI is powerful, but it is also inconsistent. In its current form, it can do some tasks better than humans and fail badly at others. That paradox is often called the Jagged Frontier.

The Jagged Frontier idea matters because it explains why some people see AI as transformative while others remain lukewarm. A BCG and Harvard study of 758 knowledge workers found that people get the most value from AI when they understand what it is good at and where it breaks down.

Microsoft reached a similar conclusion in its 2026 Work Trend Index Annual Report. The company found that a small group of advanced AI users, described as Frontier Professionals, were not simply using AI more often. They also knew which mode of AI use fit each task.

That distinction is important. The best AI users are not handing everything over blindly. They are applying judgment. They know when to use AI as a helper, when to use it as a collaborator, when to use agents for multi-step workflows, and when to keep a human firmly in control.

I still do not trust most AI workflows enough to leave them running with no maintenance, review, or quality assurance. The question I ask is simple: would I bet my brand, customer experience, or revenue on a fully automated workflow with no human oversight?

Klarna is a useful warning here. The company publicly promoted the idea that AI was doing the work of hundreds of agents and helping reduce headcount. Later, it reversed course and rehired humans after leadership acknowledged that aggressive cost-cutting had lowered quality and that customers still wanted a human option.

That is the tradeoff I see with substitution positioning. It creates immediate attention, but it can damage long-term credibility. The words often do not match the operational reality.

Replacement positioning could work if customers truly wanted full replacement and if the technology were consistently ready for it. I do not think either condition is true.

Cost reduction is a strong AI argument because it shows up quickly on the P&L. Productivity gains usually take longer. They build inside companies over time and often take even longer to appear across the broader economy.

But when replacement positioning goes beyond cost-cutting and becomes people-cutting, I believe it starts to antagonize the very people companies need to win over.

We have already seen backlash. Duolingo’s AI-first memo drew heavy criticism before the company reframed AI as a tool to accelerate work rather than replace contractors. Surveys have found that some workers refuse to use AI tools because they fear job loss. Pew has reported that many U.S. adults are more concerned than excited about AI in daily life. Reuters/Ipsos polling has shown widespread fear that AI will permanently displace workers.

There is also a quality problem. When employees believe the purpose of AI is to replace them, they may disengage or produce lower-quality work. In my view, that is not just an adoption issue. It is a positioning failure.

Executives often feel more excited about AI than the employees asked to use it every day. That gap matters. If leadership talks about AI as a replacement engine, employees hear a threat. If leadership talks about AI as leverage, employees have a reason to learn.

Token economics also complicate the replacement story. Some companies have bragged about massive AI usage, but token costs are still a real business variable. As those costs normalize, the math may make junior employees look interesting again, especially when human judgment, context, and accountability are part of the output.

So what should replace replacement? I think the answer is enhancement. Instead of positioning AI as a way to remove people, I would position it as a way to make capable people more effective.

AI can be used in two broad ways. A company can try to reduce the number of people, or it can grow output with the same number of people. The data I have seen suggests that productivity gains often create the stronger return.

A National Bureau of Economic Research paper surveyed 750 executives about AI’s impact on productivity and labor markets. Larger firms showed more interest in replacing labor costs, but the highest ROI came from productivity growth.

That is the lesson I take from the research: doing more with the talent you already have is often stronger than trying to remove the talent that knows what good work looks like.

Building products has become easier, but distribution has not. When supply explodes, the scarce thing is not output. The scarce thing is being the product, brand, or service that actually gets chosen.

That is why positioning matters more than ever. Product quality still matters, but the way I frame AI use can determine whether people see it as empowering or threatening.

My takeaway is simple: I would stop selling AI as a people replacement. I would sell it as judgment leverage, workflow acceleration, and creative expansion. Fear can get attention, but empowerment is a better long-term strategy.

This post first appeared on the author’s website and is republished here with permission.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

July 3, 2026
Why Accessibility Is an $18 Trillion Marketing Advantage

Every so often, I see a product launch turn into a marketing lesson bigger than the product itself. Selena Gomez’s Rare Beauty did that with a new fragrance, but it was not only the scent that drew attention. The bottle became the story. Its accessible, easy-to-use packaging sparked conversation, earned praise from accessibility advocates, and reminded me how powerful inclusive design can be when it is built into the product from the start.

For me, the lesson is clear: accessibility is not a side note. It can become the campaign. One thoughtful design choice created cultural impact that would be hard to buy with media spend alone. It also showed why accessibility can build loyalty, strengthen brand reputation, support compliance, and drive measurable growth.

Accessibility as a campaign strategy

I do not see Rare Beauty’s accessibility work as a one-off moment. From packaging to pricing to its ongoing mental health advocacy, the brand has consistently made inclusivity part of its identity. That matters because consumers can usually tell when a brand is chasing attention versus when it is acting from a real strategy. They reward brands that lead with values and follow through.

Rare Beauty is not alone. I see leading brands across industries using accessibility as a differentiator, not a footnote. Apple often frames accessibility features as part of product innovation. Microsoft has brought inclusive design into mainstream campaigns, including adaptive gaming products that positioned accessibility as a source of creativity and connection. In fashion and retail, brands like Tommy Hilfiger and Unilever have put adaptive design into product launches and brand identity instead of treating it as a niche offering.

Studies from Edelman and McKinsey show why this shift matters. According to those studies, 73% of Gen Z choose to buy from brands they believe in, and 70% say they try to purchase products from companies they consider ethical. I do not see those as fringe preferences. I see them as mainstream expectations that should change how marketers build trust and growth.

The $18 trillion market marketers overlook

More than 1.3 billion people globally live with a disability. Together with their friends and family, they control more than $18 trillion in spending power, according to the Return on Disability Group. I believe marketers should view this as more than a compliance issue. It is a growth opportunity, a reputation opportunity, and a trust-building opportunity with one of the world’s largest and most passionate consumer groups.

That passion often turns into advocacy. In discussions with AudioEye’s A11iance Team, a group of individuals with disabilities who regularly share feedback on real-world accessibility experiences, one member said, “If I find a website that works and works very well for me, I will always recommend it to friends and family because I want people to have the same experience that I have.”

Another A11iance Team member, Maxwell Ivey, put it this way: “The cheapest form of advertising is word of mouth, and people with disabilities can have some of the loudest voices when we find people willing to make the effort. Because it’s that sincere effort over time that really counts with us.”

When accessibility becomes part of the customer experience, I see it create something media budgets cannot easily buy: trust and loyalty that scale through advocacy. But the reverse is also true. In a survey of assistive technology users, 54% said they do not feel eCommerce companies care about earning their business.

That should get every marketer’s attention. Too many brands are still fighting for the same crowded audience segments while overlooking a major opportunity in plain sight. When they do, they leave loyalty, advocacy, and revenue on the table.

Here is where I see many brands stumble: accessibility often stops at the shelf. Marketers invest heavily in packaging, store displays, and product design, while digital experiences lag behind. Yet those digital experiences are often the first and most important touchpoints customers have with a brand.

As accessibility-led design earns more attention, loyalty, and earned media, the gap between physical product innovation and digital experience becomes harder to ignore.

AudioEye’s 2025 Digital Accessibility Index found an average of 297 accessibility issues per web page detectable by automation alone. Each issue can create friction in the customer journey, cost a conversion, or introduce compliance risk under frameworks such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the European Accessibility Act (EAA).

I would not launch a campaign without a brand review or a legal check. In the same way, I do not think any digital touchpoint should go live without an accessibility review.

Four moves marketing leaders can make

Too often, I see accessibility treated as a risk to manage instead of an advantage to use. The marketers who gain ground will be the ones who change that mindset. I would start with four practical moves.

1. Make accessibility your campaign hook

I would not hide accessibility in the fine print. I would lead with it. Brands like Rare Beauty have shown that inclusive design is the story. Build campaigns where accessibility is not an afterthought, but the differentiator that earns attention and loyalty.

2. Bake it into your brand system

Accessibility should not sit off to the side. I would make Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) alignment part of the brand system, right alongside typography, logos, and tone of voice. When accessibility is documented and expected, it becomes easier to apply across every campaign.

3. Use data as your proof point

Marketers are storytellers, but numbers strengthen the story. I would track accessibility improvements such as fewer user-reported barriers, higher accessibility scores, stronger alt text, better color contrast, and more usable forms. Then I would connect those metrics to business outcomes like conversion, reach, and sentiment to show how accessibility drives ROI, not just compliance.

4. Protect accessibility like brand safety

I would treat accessibility with the same seriousness as brand safety. Every update, seasonal campaign, and product drop should be monitored for accessibility. Trust and reputation are too valuable to leave exposed.

The competitive advantage

Rare Beauty’s fragrance launch proved something important to me: when a brand leads with accessibility, the story can write itself. Loyalty builds more authentically, and momentum feels more natural because the value is real.

The larger opportunity is that many brands still do not see it. They continue to treat accessibility as a compliance checkbox when it can be a growth strategy.

For marketers, that is the wake-up call. Accessibility builds loyalty. It strengthens brand reputation. It supports compliance. And it can drive measurable growth across marketing efforts.

Rare Beauty showed how accessibility can capture attention at the shelf. Now I see the next opportunity clearly: making sure that same accessibility carries through online. When every touchpoint welcomes everyone, every campaign has a better chance to deliver its full impact.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

July 3, 2026
Unlocking the Secrets to Winning Search Awards

Don’t miss your chance to claim the highest honor in search marketing. Let’s uncover what it takes to stand out among the best.

Since I started following the Search Engine Land Awards back in 2015, I’ve watched them recognize exceptional marketers for their outstanding work. The awards not only highlight achievements but also offer winners well-deserved exposure through coverage and interviews, celebrating them with the highest honor in search.

I’ve learned there’s no magic formula for a winning entry, but certain elements make an application truly exceptional. The best submissions tell a compelling story, provide context, showcase strategic thinking, and clearly communicate the significance of the work done.

Want some insider tips from the 2026 judges? I’ve gathered insights from them to help you craft a strong and captivating submission. From common pitfalls to avoid to the standout qualities they seek, these expert insights will guide you in building a compelling entry.

Keep reading for fresh insights from this year’s judges. (Check out the complete list of 2026 judges here!)

“A great entry is a story with a goal, an action, and a measurable outcome. Tell that story effectively, and include a deck illustrating your accomplishments.”

– Amy Hebdon, Founder, Paid Search Magic

“Explain your tactics. Go beyond mentioning ‘best practices.’ Describe how your unique processes led to success. Show your insights and creative problem-solving—this helps your entry shine and showcases your company’s edge.”

– Brad Geddes, Co-Founder, Adalysis

“I look for SAY, which stands for: Situation, Action, and Yield. Provide a clear example of the situation, the actions you took, and the measurable yield achieved over time.”

And there you have it! Submit your entry today to be considered by this year’s esteemed judges. Don’t wait, as Early Bird rates expire July 10!

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

June 23, 2026
Top 11 Common PPC Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

As I delve deeper into the world of ad platforms, it’s fascinating to see how algorithms are transforming the landscape—putting a spotlight on marketers and their expertise.

Managing ad accounts today is a whole new ball game compared to just a few years back. With automation taking center stage through tools like Meta’s Advantage+ and Google’s Performance Max, the skills needed for effective account management have evolved significantly.

Recently, I’ve conducted numerous B2B account audits, for companies both in-house and those transitioning from agencies. It’s striking how rare it is to find operators who truly grasp these systems.

Even with advanced technology at our fingertips, many proficient B2B marketers continue to make costly errors. Here are the frequent mistakes I’ve identified recently on LinkedIn and Google.

Mistakes Advertisers Are Still Making on LinkedIn

LinkedIn is indispensable for B2B outreach, yet some advertisers persist with avoidable blunders like these.

1. Ignoring Audience Targeting

Shockingly, I still see this rookie error. Ads end up targeting entry-level individuals, students, and irrelevant businesses instead of the intended audience.

2. Neglecting to Adjust Targeting Over Time

LinkedIn’s professional targeting can be excellent, but not infallible. It often lets unrelated roles and titles slip through, wasting budget on irrelevant audiences.

3. Over-relying on Automated Settings

This is more common than a mere oversight. Keeping options like audience expansion active leads to ads appearing in less relevant, low-quality spots.

4. Stagnating Creative Content

Veteran LinkedIn marketers know that LinkedIn’s ad structure complicates creative testing, emphasizing the need for creative refreshes and theme variations.
Dig deeper: 5 B2B LinkedIn Ads tests to run in 2026
Mistakes Advertisers Still Making on Google

Here are the top pitfalls I’ve discovered in Google Ads accounts recently.

5. Using Conversion Strategies Without Adequate Data

Ad accounts employing conversion-based strategies without any conversion data often mislead algorithms, targeting the cheapest and least effective actions.

6. Defaulting to Display and Search Partners

This blunder reallocates budget from high-intent searches to less effective, lower-quality placements, wasting resources.

7. Forgetting Sitelinks

Omitting sitelinks diminishes the potential to occupy more space in search results, reducing appeal to potential customers.

8. Ignoring Non-Converting Keywords

Failure to scrutinize and modify ads for non-converting keywords results in wasted investment.

9. Overusing Broad Match

Exclusively using broad match without employing phrase or exact match can lead to unnecessary expenditure.

10. Unrestricted PMax Utilization

While PMax for B2B has evolved, neglecting enhanced conversions and educational setup is a recipe for low-quality leads.

11. Discounting AI Max Testing

With Google constantly innovating ad serving and optimization through AI, early adoption can offer a competitive advantage.
Dig deeper: Top 10 Google Ads mistakes to avoid in 2026
Automation Still Needs Skilled Oversight

Critical gaps often occur post-data collection, where follow-up sequences and accurate data linking are necessary to optimize Return on Ad Spend (ROAS).

Focusing solely on past practices like granular negative keywords without adapting to newer automation capabilities highlights inefficiencies.

Mistakes might appear minor, but they signal deeper mismanagement when left unattended, stressing the need for skilled supervision even in an automated environment.

Remember, effective ad management still necessitates quality inputs, accurate measurement, and vigilant oversight.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

June 10, 2026
Why ‘It’s Just SEO’ is Limiting Our Industry’s Growth

I’ll be honest; the ongoing discourse around the GEO debate feels like a distraction from a much more significant transformation. AI systems are reimagining how brands, sources, and recommendations are surfaced, demanding our full attention.

It’s both impressive and frustrating how search has managed to spark such passionate debate at a time when it should be becoming more pivotal to clients. Yet, our industry is stuck in arguments that render us irrelevant.

So, who truly owns the future of search? That’s the real question we need to tackle.

Who defines the next phase of search? Who secures the budget? Who articulates the shift from a list of links to a machine-driven recommendation system?

The phrase “it’s just SEO” has caused considerable damage. It sounds like the calm, seasoned wisdom you’d expect from a search veteran. However, it lacks strategic depth. It’s a meme that constrains one of the most substantial commercial opportunities in years.

Why Memes Matter in Search

Memetics isn’t a new concept. Richard Dawkins introduced it in “The Selfish Gene” in 1976, suggesting that ideas spread through culture in a fashion similar to genes. Susan Blackmore expanded on this, claiming we’re essentially ‘meme machines’ built to propagate cultural information. The most resilient ideas aren’t necessarily true; they’re the stickiest.

Take “Happy Birthday to You,” it’s memorable and universally known not because it’s brilliant, but because it’s easy to replicate and emotionally fulfilling. Slogans and professional clichés endure for their simplicity and utility, not their accuracy.

SEO and GEO are entangled in a memetic struggle. This issue is amplified as the phrase “it’s just SEO” became predominant when GEO appeared, driving a wedge into meaningful conversation.

When GEO first came into the discussion, reactions varied. While some recognized the need for new tools and methods, others viewed it as a threat, repelling it with the phrase “it’s just SEO” — turning it into a chant and then a weapon. It was an ideal meme, short and socially protective.

The follow-up meme “GEO grifter” did even more harm, framing advocates of GEO as opportunists and stifling exploration and innovation. This behavior causes harm when consensus forms based solely on repetition, with the algorithms rewarding those repeating the framing, creating a false sense of agreement.

Clients Seek Certainty, Not Acronyms

I’ve observed firsthand at conferences like BrightonSEO that many marketers are already leveraging generative systems. They don’t need debates over terms; they’ve adapted to new processes accordingly.

SEO has always been difficult to sell against paid counterparts due to previous uncertainties and failures. Nonetheless, good SEO generates tangible success. Failing to clarify the changes will see budgets drift elsewhere, especially to paid avenues.

The B2B Institute’s Findings

According to LinkedIn’s B2B Institute, growth for B2B brands stems from being easy to locate. Digital environments now demand visibility across new platforms.

The report views GEO as an extension of SEO and emphasizes establishing authority, relevance, and credibility. Discoverability is altering, yet core principles endure.

The 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Dilemma

“It’s just SEO” oversimplifies a vast concept. When someone insists GEO is “just SEO,” I must ask — which kind? Each interpretation involves different practices and focuses.

If our response to generative systems is “helpful content,” we’re on the wrong track. The future demands more than vague promises; it requires adopting digital PR, brand strategies, and tactical marketing insights.

No Name, No Funding

Markets can’t invest in what they don’t recognize. Naming GEO is crucial as it turns abstract threats into actionable categories. Without a name and a defined category, the industry will fail to secure the investments needed to thrive in an altered landscape.

Ultimately, whether we call it GEO, AI search visibility, or SEO evolved, defining it ensures survival and growth. Brands that embrace this will capture opportunities that arise as search evolves.

A New Framing for Change

It’s time to acknowledge change and redefine the narrative. The transformation involves becoming the recommended brand — present, visible, and credible. It’s about expanding SEO to embrace the broader spectrum of digital marketing.

Adapting to these shifts will ensure brands maintain their visibility as search continues to evolve. Those clinging to outdated debates are at risk of missing out entirely.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

June 2, 2026
Harnessing Psychology: Create Persuasive Content That Converts

I’ve noticed that TikTok Shop creators excel by tapping into the psychology that drives people to act. Let me share how we can leverage these persuasive principles in our writing.

SEO content is often designed to rank, but conversion can sometimes fall by the wayside when we’re caught up in the technical checklist. In light of AI Overviews and falling click-through rates making visibility more challenging, I believe it’s time to focus on whether our content encourages action once someone engages with it.

Take a cue from TikTok Shop creators—they don’t just thrive because of large followings. They master persuasion by understanding consumer psychology and scaling actions. This insight can transform how we approach our written content.

The formula that successful TikTok Shop creators follow isn’t random. It relies on consumer psychology principles, not on celebrity status or follower count. I’ve realized that 99% of my own video views come from non-followers. Therefore, it’s the understanding of the psychology behind actions that matters.

By focusing on visual hooks, psychological triggers, storytelling, and relentless experimentation, we can apply these elements to written content to drive similar results.

People often buy based on emotions, justifying their decisions rationally later. It’s crucial to connect with their motivations rather than just presenting facts.

Persuasive content succeeds because it targets human desires like protecting loved ones, enjoying life, feeling safe, and seeking social approval.

Understanding these motivations allows me to craft content that resonates more deeply with my audience, ultimately leading to better engagement and conversion rates.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

May 28, 2026
Boost Team Efficiency: Overcome GTM Barriers with Storyblok

I’ve recently stumbled upon some fascinating global research data that highlights a tech gap silently draining team speed, revenues, and competitive edge. The Storyblok Global Speed-to-Market Benchmark Report explores these issues comprehensively.

This rapidly evolving world demands a new pace, driven by cutting-edge AI and technology, and constant shifts in digital trends have redefined how we handle go-to-market (GTM) strategies.

In today’s marketplace, everyone, from customers to organizations, expects top-notch deliveries with speed. Unfortunately, only 22.5% of teams consistently meet these soaring speed-to-market expectations, revealing a disconcerting gap between ambition and actualization.

One might ask, what’s holding us back?

The Global Speed-to-Market Benchmark survey involved several GTM teams who shared insights on where processes are stalling or facing delays and what steps would truly improve speed-to-market in today’s fast-paced business environment.

The survey uncovered four significant bottlenecks largely tied back to technological hiccups or dependencies. The approval process, for instance, emerged as the most substantial bottleneck, with over 50% of teams identifying it as a major hurdle. This includes enduring multiple rounds of content revisions largely driven by disorganized feedback systems, exacerbating inefficiencies.

The practical solution? A well-configured CMS, particularly a headless one, allows for an organized and efficient content review process by decoupling content from presentation. This ensures stakeholders have access to a central content repository, thereby minimizing review confusion and delays.

Equally problematic is the overreliance on developers, where 38% of teams require developer input for most GTM operations. This not only slows marketers but also distracts developers from more critical tasks. A modern tech stack enabling team autonomy can mitigate this issue, allowing each team to concentrate on their core functions.

Moreover, compounding tech limitations, including complex deployment and outdated systems, further warrant an overhaul. Tech bottlenecks often operate silently, but they demand attention and timely solutions for improved GTM cycles.

I also noticed how post-launch firefighting issues are rampant, affecting 79% of teams. This inefficiency stems from fragmented systems, where constant developer intervention is necessary, further delaying launch processes.

Addressing these challenges involves refining the tech stack, especially choosing a CMS that aligns with modern delivery needs. This results in smoother launches, improved efficiency, and fewer post-launch issues.

The cost of slow GTM delivery is undeniable, leading to lost revenue and missed market opportunities, while also impacting team morale and increasing turnover risks. Interestingly, there’s a visible discrepancy between executive priorities and the requisite support for improved speed-to-market capabilities.

Armed with data, teams can make a compelling business case for change, drawing attention to specific bottlenecks and their ramifications, thus bridging the leadership alignment gap.

Overall, overcoming GTM challenges requires adopting adaptive technology stacks that align with today’s fast-paced demands. By doing so, we not only keep up with competition but also foster a resilient, engaged team poised for success.

For the complete analysis and strategies, the full Storyblok Global Speed-to-Market Benchmark Report is an invaluable resource.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

May 20, 2026
Unlocking the Power of Google Discover Publisher Profiles

I find it fascinating how Google Discover has evolved with the introduction of publisher profiles and follow features. These profiles have started making waves, yet they remain a bit enigmatic due to limited documentation.

More publishers, creators, and social-first accounts are now visible through these profiles. Let me take you through how these profiles work, how they connect with social accounts and the Knowledge Graph, and why some publishers already enjoy enhanced customization features.

As a technical SEO enthusiast, I’m quite accustomed to Google glossing over details in their documentation. And with Discover publisher profiles, that mystery deepens.

Google barely mentions these profiles in their official Discover documentation, though they seem to play an increasingly significant role in the visibility of publishers and creators.

It’s intriguing to see how Discover profiles let users manage the publishers they follow while gathering content from various websites and social platforms.

Because Google has been reticent about the inner workings of these profiles, I’ve taken upon myself to study their patterns across different accounts. Here’s what I’ve noticed about:

Google rolled out substantial updates to Discover in September 2025, vastly altering how we engage with content through publisher follows and profile pages.

The update granted publishers dedicated landing pages for content aggregation, offering users a streamlined way to interact with preferred publishers and seamlessly integrating social content into Discover.

The most eye-catching aspect of this update is how it empowers users to have greater control over publisher visibility while enabling brands to reach their audience more effectively.

Publishers can’t typically alter the layout of these pages, but some recently gained access to customize their profiles, an option part of a limited beta test.

Common to most publisher profiles are features like a profile photo, usually sourced from the Knowledge Graph or a YouTube profile, which also counts total social followers, and integrates various social media handles.

The social connections catered to include platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn. The ‘About’ section is succinct, often derived from a Wikipedia entry or something similar.

Some editable profiles offer additional features like customized banners, pinned posts, and external links that could direct users to apps or livestreams, further enhancing content reach.

There are two main types of Discover publisher profiles: ones for entities with websites and others solely focused on social media publishers.

Web-focused publishers’ profiles tend to be more comprehensive, often including the About section, logos, social accounts, and website links—although social links might sometimes need a manual push to be included.

On the other hand, profiles for social media publishers focus on prominent journalists, notable figures, and those solely identifiable through social media.

These profiles are generally less complete unless they are tied to a Knowledge Graph, missing elements like profile pictures or descriptions, frequently needing aid from connected YouTube accounts for better appearance.

Looking forward, I anticipate Google may broaden access to these editable profiles, though I suspect customization will remain selective, likely reserved for well-established publishers and creators.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

May 20, 2026
Master Your Brand with a Strategic Martech Stack

Struggling with maintaining brand consistency? I’ve learned that it’s not about having more tools, but rather having the right tools, perfectly aligned with your brand’s goals.

I’ve seen marketing teams overwhelmed with tools. The average B2B company might use up to 20 different martech solutions. Despite this, keeping brand consistency at scale can be tough. Fewer than 10% of brands manage to maintain strong cohesiveness across all products and channels. The core issue? Tools rarely work in harmony to support a unified brand experience.

Managing a brand across various channels, whether through campaigns or social media, can lead to brand elements drifting. It’s those small inconsistencies—a slightly off-color logo here, outdated messaging there—that can gradually erode the hard-earned brand equity.

The solution isn’t about increasing the number of tools. It’s about selecting the right ones and arranging them with deliberate intention.

Start with strategy, then stack

Before diving into an audit of your current software or seeking out new options, it’s crucial to develop a framework for what brand equity means to your organization. David Aaker’s brand equity model—which focuses on loyalty, awareness, perceived quality, and brand associations—is a sound approach. It transforms brand management into a sustainable growth strategy. In terms of a martech stack, this means utilizing tools that both build and protect your brand.

On the strategy side, platforms like Notion, Miro, and Lucidchart are invaluable. They help document positioning, define messaging, and map out customer journeys. These may not be glamorous, but they provide the solid foundation for successful execution. Without such a framework, design and content teams are left guessing.

The core of the stack: Digital asset management

If there’s one tool that differentiates a cohesive brand management stack from fragmented apps, it’s digital asset management (DAM). Unlike typical cloud storage services such as Google Drive or Dropbox, a DAM solution organizes and governs brand assets comprehensively, offering features like approval workflows and version management that cloud storage lacks.

Consistent branding can increase revenue by 10–20%, and a DAM provides the structure needed to maintain this consistency at scale. By ensuring all team members and partners access the same approved asset library, you eliminate brand drift.

Modern DAMs further simplify brand management by integrating AI to speed up content discovery and automated metadata tagging, reducing creative bottlenecks and accelerating go-to-market timelines.

Execution tools that reinforce brand standards

Apart from DAM, execution tools are essential for converting brand strategy into consistent published content. Depending on your team, Adobe Creative Cloud, Figma, or Canva can be used. They offer varying degrees of design flexibility and guardrails to maintain brand standards.

Balancing creativity with adherence to brand guidelines is key. Tools with brand templating features allow teams autonomy while ensuring brand consistency. Alternatively, using brand templates within your DAM offers greater control and tracking capabilities.

For social media and content distribution, platforms like Hootsuite and HubSpot ensure cohesive publishing across channels. It’s crucial these tools connect to your DAM to guarantee only brand-approved content is shared widely.

SEO tools like SEMrush and Ahrefs help reinforce your brand’s voice and authority online. In today’s market, where SEO extends to geo-targeting, it’s vital to ensure your brand is accurately represented from the start of customer interaction.

Governance closes the loop

A martech stack without governance is simply a mix of tools. Governance—including approval workflows and brand monitoring—is what makes your stack effective and protective.

Incorporating workflow tools into project management or your DAM ensures faster and accountable proofing cycles. Tools like Mention help track external brand perception, highlighting areas of potential drift before they escalate.

The takeaway

The aim of a streamlined brand management martech stack is not complexity but efficiency. It should empower any team member or partner to access and create on-brand content swiftly, independently, and without needing constant design team input.

This requires a strategic approach, a robust DAM as the central hub, integration with execution tools, and governance practices that uphold standards. When these elements work together, your brand transforms from a reactive endeavor to a proactive tool for long-term success.

Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.

May 15, 2026