Search 500 Index Travel

SEARCH 500 INDEX: TRAVEL
WHERE IS THE FORTUNE 500 FOUND IN NATURAL SEARCH?
MAY 8, 2007
SEARCH 500 INDEX: TRAVEL MAY 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................3
Implications and Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................4
Analysis...............................................................................................................................................................................................5
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................................................9
Media and Content Inquiries .............................................................................................................................................................11
Glossary of Terms ..............................................................................................................................................................................12
Appendix ...........................................................................................................................................................................................13
© COPYRIGHT 2007. ICROSSING, INC. | WWW.ICROSSING.COM ATLANTA | CHICAGO | DALLAS | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SCOTTSDALE | U.K. 1.866.620.3780 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this index is to quantify the natural search visibility of the 12 Fortune 500 travel
companies, compare these companies on the basis of natural search visibility, and compare the visibility
of all competitors in the given online keyword landscape that comprises the Search 500 Index: Travel.
For the Search 500 Index: Travel, iCrossing analyzed natural search engine position data for the following
U.S. search engines: Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Ask, and AOL. Natural search visibility was assessed and
scored based on iCrossing’s patent-pending index, which weighs the value of natural search engine
market share. Known as the Brand Scorecard, companies are ranked on a scale of 0-10 where a score
of 2 indicates insignificant visibility, a score of 5 means moderate-to-high visibility, and a score of 8
signifies high visibility in natural search. Please see the methodology section for more details about the
ranking system. An appendix with a full list of both keywords and URLs is available upon request.
QUESTIONS WE ASKED
How visible are Fortune 500 travel companies in natural search?
Does leadership in the traditional marketplace translate to leadership in natural search visibility?
What strategies can Fortune 500 travel companies implement to improve their natural search
visibility?
KEY FINDINGS
In general, Fortune 500 travel companies are doing an adequate job achieving natural search
visibility.
+ All 12 Fortune 500 travel companies demonstrated some natural search visibility, as opposed to the
significant gap we found in the automotive sector (please see the Search 500 Index: Automotive
published in January 2007).
+ Overall, the search visibility rankings of Fortune 500 travel companies were consistent with their
Fortune 500 rankings, except for Harrah’s Entertainment and MGM Mirage, both of which dropped
three positions compared to their Fortune 500 rankings.
+ Airline companies have been more effective to date at gaining natural search visibility than hotel/
resort companies.
+ There is room for improvement for Fortune 500 travel companies, as most did not rank well in the
overall search visibility list for this keyword set.
+ Online travel agencies significantly outpaced traditional hotel/resort companies in natural search
visibility. Of the top 100 highest ranking sites in this industry, 63 percent were online travel agencies,
demonstrating their importance and prominence in the overall travel industry.
+ Fortune 500 travel companies with a large Web presence (many distinct domains) did not necessarily
do better than those with fewer domains for this keyword set, underscoring the importance of the
quality – not the quantity – of websites.
Fortune 500 travel companies, especially hotel/resort companies, which demonstrated relatively
poor performance in this study, have invested significantly in websites built on multiple domains.
For the key competitive terms considered in this study, the presence of local-specific micro-sites
did not have a significant effect on the results; that being said, the long tail of search cannot be
underestimated but was not included in the scope of this study.
IMPLICATIONS AND Based on the results of the analysis, iCrossing recommends that Fortune 500 travel companies
increase their focus on improving their natural search visibility. Specifically, we recommend that
RECOMMENDATIONS these companies:
+ Re-evaluate their competitive set based on the accessibility of information available through natural
search and come to recognize highly visible companies as direct competitors in their space;
+ When considering a partnership with or buying media on the sites of relevant online companies,
make sure those companies have an effective natural search visibility strategy;
+ Remember that a few focused and well-designed websites may work more effectively than multiple
scattered websites: keep most of the properties under the main domain and strive to adequately
pass on the relevance to the properties under the .com umbrella (e.g. create links leading to the
properties on the main website);
+ Conduct in-depth, search-based competitive analyses to derive as many insights as possible from
the strategies and tactics of industry leaders;
+ Do not simply copy the traditional industry leaders, especially if they use flawed technology.
Instead, make sure any online strategies adopted are search-friendly.
ANALYSIS After analyzing a set of 110 keywords (based on a broad range of travel terms that comprised travel
agency, airline, vacation, hotel, resort, and other travel-related information) and a comprehensive list
of URLs that represent Fortune 500 travel companies, iCrossing found that the majority of Fortune 500
travel companies are doing an adequate job in terms of achieving natural search visibility.
Based on the travel companies’ Brand Scorecard results, all 12 Fortune 500 travel companies analyzed
appeared in natural search results. They ranged from a low of 2.09 (MGM Mirage) to a high of 3.62
(American Airlines) on a scale of 0-10. This finding indicates that most of the travel companies on the
Fortune 500 list have paid attention to their natural search engine strategies. Still, when looking more
broadly at websites that rank for this set of terms, we found that the competitive landscape of the travel
industry is significantly different in terms of natural search rankings than that of the traditional Fortune
500, with none of the major players even breaking into the top 20 for natural search visibility. This means
there is still a lot of room to improve for the majority of Fortune 500 travel companies.
Search Visibility Ranking as Change in Rank Among the Fortune

Fortune 500 Fortune 500
Compared to Other Fortune Scores 500 Travel Companies Based
Ranking Travel Company
500 Travel Companies on Search Engine Visibility
1 1 American Airlines 3.62 Same Rank
2 2 United Airlines 3.41 Same Rank
3 3 Delta Air Lines 3.01 Same Rank
4 4 Northwest Airlines 2.85 Same Rank
5 5 Marriott International 2.78 Same Rank
6 6 Continental Airlines 2.69 Same Rank
7 7 Southwest Airlines 2.50 Same Rank
8 10 Starwood Hotels & Rsrts. 2.49 2
9 11 US Airways Group 2.19 2
10 12 Hilton Hotels 2.19 2
11 8 Harrah’s Entertainment 2.16 3
12 9 MGM Mirage 2.09 3
Overall, the natural search visibility rankings of Fortune 500 travel companies were consistent with
their Fortune 500 rankings, except for Harrah’s Entertainment and MGM Mirage. Specifically, Harrah’s
Entertainment and MGM Mirage both decreased by three positions.
Airlines have done a better job than hotels/resorts on natural search visibility. This is probably due
to the comprehensive online booking systems airline companies have adopted and their increasing
popularity among consumers. Most of the hotels/resorts/casinos showed lower natural search visibility
even though they have multiple websites. We did a deep dive on local websites of two Fortune 500 hotel
companies and determined that their micro-sites did not help increase the overall search visibility for the
brand within the keyword list used for this report. Their search visibility scores remained the same with
or without the local websites. This may be a result of the fact that we focused on broad and popular
terms for this analysis versus the longer tail of local search. However, we can safely recommend that
a more effective overall strategy would be to create a localized presence among the main domain for
the brand.
To support the above conclusion, we analyzed a few major items that play a role in determining how
successful a site could be for natural search visibility. These factors include:
+ Number of pages indexed by search engines + Number of links from .gov sites
+ Number of links on other webpages pointing + PageRank (the value of a page

to the site determined by Google)
+ Age of the domain + A DMOZ directory listing
+ Number of links from .edu sites + A Yahoo! directory listing
What we found in this instance is as follows:
% of the Sites
Fortune 500
# of Pages # of Links Domain Age # of .edu Links # of .gov Links PageRank Listed in Yahoo!
Hotel Company A
and/or DMOZ
Main Domain 16,300 294,758 13 14,400 565 8 33
Average of Local
42 630 7 12 0.75 4 100
Websites
% of the Sites
Fortune 500
# of Pages # of Links Domain Age # of .edu Links # of .gov Links PageRank Listed in Yahoo!
Hotel Company B
and/or DMOZ
Main Domain 34,000 245,430 10 1,230 74 8 27
Average of Local
75 1,410 6 9 0.40 4 100
Websites
Comparing the online strategy of main domains and local websites to their resulting natural search
visibility, we deliver the following conclusions:
First, the size of a website (as indicated by the number of pages indexed) is important, especially if all
those pages are unique and offer something useful because the engines view a larger site as a more
valuable resource than a smaller site.
Second, the overall link popularity of a site is by far the most important element in creating a trusted,
powerful website that can be considered an authority in its industry. The more quality, relevant links a site
has from trusted sources, the greater their authoritativeness, weight and of course their link popularity
becomes. Generally speaking, the most authoritative links are going to come from educational institutes
(.edu links) and government sites (.gov links). Besides these, the two most powerful links that every site
should strive to include in order to target highly competitive terms are links from the DMOZ and Yahoo!
Directory.
Another factor with significant bearing on the level of trust and quality attributed to a site is the age of
the domain. This should be measured from the first time that content placed on the site could be found,
not simply the day it was registered. Generally, the longer a site has been in existence and available as
a resource, the more authoritative that resource becomes.
Nevertheless, using a content-rich (indexed pages), popular (incoming links), trusted (.edu/.gov links),
established (age of domain) site over a less optimized site will enable this and most other sites within the
travel industry to rank well. iCrossing recommends that travel companies avoid smaller micro-sites and
concentrate on building out local pages for the different properties from the main domain.
In some cases a brand may want to use additional domain names. We recommend using them for vanity
purposes to show a cleaner URL, but suggest they all permanently redirect to the primary domain for
the brand.
In the overall search landscape, quality matters far more than quantity. A few focused and well-designed
websites may work more effectively than multiple scattered websites. The relatively poor results for
hotel/resort companies suggest that they have not focused their attention on building natural search
visibility for local hotel sites within their networks.
Another problem we have noted is that most of the industry players copy each other. They use the same
content management systems (CMS), the same platforms and the same site structure. If any of these
elements happens to be unfriendly to search, it then gets propagated throughout the whole industry. For
example, iCrossing noted that companies in the cruise industry historically have used the same flawed
technology for their websites, and as a result they did not rank well as an industry.
PERCENTAGE OF FIRST PAGE RANKED TERMS FOR THE TOP 7 FORTUNE 500 TRAVEL COMPANIES
Delta Airlines
7%
Southwest American Airlines
11% 29%
Marriott
11%
Continental
12%
United Airlines
16%
Northwest Airlines
14%
HOW DID THE FORTUNE 500 FARE AGAINST THE MOST VISIBLE WEBSITES IN THE NATURAL SEARCH
LANDSCAPE FOR TRAVEL KEYWORD SEARCHES?
In general, the list of the most visible websites returned for travel keyword searches shows online travel
agencies are more visible than any other type of travel-related companies. The least visible companies
are hotels and resorts.
The top 100 naturally-ranking websites for this keyword set consisted of 63 travel agency sites such as
Orbitz and Cheaptickets, 14 travel-related information sites such as about.com, 10 hotels/resorts/cruise
sites, six airline company websites, three general information sites such as Wikipedia, three vacation
home rental sites and one movie site (www.imdb.com). Sixty-three percent of the top 100 were online
travel agencies, demonstrating the importance and prominence of online travel in the overall travel
industry. Indeed, according to a recent report released by eMarketer, U.S. customers spent $79 billion
on online travel last year, and spending in this category is predicted to grow at around 17 percent
per year for the next five years, totaling $146 billion by 2010 (http://www.emarketer.com/Reports/All/
Emarketer_2000387.aspx?src=report_head_info_reports). As search becomes an increasingly important
marketing strategy for this industry, the race to achieve natural search visibility will have greater bearing
on companies’ bottom lines.
KEYWORD ANALYSIS REPORT: TRAVEL INDUSTRY
Total
Search 500 Ranking Search 500 Travel Websites Google* Yahoo! AOL** MSN Ask.com
Rankings
1 www.orbitz.com 112 28 58 23 1 2
2 www.cheaptickets.com 108 20 43 21 1 23
3 www.expedia.com 102 28 26 29 8 11
4 en.wikipedia.org 97 19 16 15 21 26
5 www.priceline.com 77 20 34 17 NR 6
6 www.travelocity.com 71 24 9 23 NR 15
7 www.hotwire.com 59 13 29 13 NR 4
8 travel.yahoo.com 42 11 17 11 3 NR
9 www.smartertravel.com 42 18 NR 15 5 4
10 www.tripadvisor.com 40 9 4 8 6 13
11 honeymoons.about.com 36 14 6 9 5 2
12 www.vacationidea.com 34 11 1 12 5 5
13 travelwithkids.about.com 34 10 9 6 4 5
14 www.sidestep.com 32 13 1 14 3 1
15 www.hotels.com 24 3 12 3 1 5
16 www.shermanstravel.com 24 NR 22 NR 2 NR
17 www.cheapflights.com 23 9 1 9 3 1
18 www.vacation-hotline.com 22 6 6 5 4 1
19 www.lowestfare.com 21 1 NR 1 NR 19
20 travel.state.gov 21 5 5 3 4 4
Executed on March 27, 2007. Results represent first page rankings for 110 non-branded keywords
* Results provided by third party engine
** Contains results from Google
NR - Not Ranked on the first page
Most Fortune 500 airline companies ranked on the list of the top 100 most visible travel websites,
including United Airlines (26th), Northwest Airlines (29th), Delta Airlines (31st), Continental Airlines
(36th), American Airlines (37th), and Southwest Airlines (68th). These results are consistent with what
we found about the visibility scores for these companies. Again, hotels and resorts did not perform well
for natural search visibility for this keyword set. Only Marriott (30th) appeared on the list in the hotel/
resort category.
METHODOLOGY The methodology employed in the Search 500 Index is based on the iCrossing Brand Scorecard, a
patent-pending iCrossing process, and the iCrossing Keyword Analysis Report. The main purpose of
this index is to demonstrate the natural search visibility of Fortune 500 travel companies, compare
Fortune 500 travel companies on the basis of natural search visibility, and compare the visibility of all
competitors in a given online keyword landscape. For this report, we analyzed search engine position
data from the following U.S. search engines: Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Ask, and AOL.
Following a rigid methodology, the Search 500 Index has shown natural search visibility and rankings
for both Fortune 500 and other websites within the travel category. The goal of this report was to
demonstrate the natural search visibility for key revenue-driving companies in the travel industry in
relation to newer, less traditional competition based on natural search engine visibility.
SEVEN STEPS WERE USED IN THE PROCESS TO CREATE THE FINAL REPORT
1. Identification of Fortune 500 travel companies
iCrossing generated a list of travel companies based on the categorization used by the Department
of Labor and Industries and the classification system employed by the Fortune 500. In this issue,
the travel companies on the Fortune 500 (2006) list were selected based on their categorization.
Their respective websites were also collected for their natural search visibility analyses. A full
disclosure of the website addresses used in our analysis follows. iCrossing welcomes suggestions
for additions to the list in order to ensure maximum data accuracy.
2. Identification of non-branded keywords pertaining to the travel industry

For the travel industry, we generated a set of 110 keywords based on comprehensive keyword
research. The majority of the keywords are broad, travel-related keywords. They are also non-
branded and non-localized terms. The main purpose here was to ensure that the results of the
analyses displayed as little bias as possible. The keyword list will be updated frequently based on
industry trends as the project proceeds. Given the importance of the keyword list to this process,
we open up our keyword lists for debate and welcome feedback to iteratively improve the analysis.
In addition, iCrossing would be happy to provide an estimate for delivering this same type of
analysis for a custom set of keywords on a per-project basis.
3. Creation of the Keyword Analysis Report (KAR)

Using the keyword list generated from Step 2, we created a Keyword Analysis Report to find the
most visible companies in natural search. The keyword analysis report (full version available upon
request) shows a category’s true natural search competitors. It displays which websites have the
most first page natural search rankings on popular search engines for the same set of keywords
that were included in the Position Analysis Reports (also available upon request).
4. Creation of the Position Analysis Reports (PAR)

We created Position Analysis Reports for Fortune 500 travel companies to enable us to compare at
a keyword level how each Fortune 500 company ranked in relation to other Fortune 500 companies
within the same industry. The Position Analysis Report reveals the rankings of the company’s
website(s) in each major search engine (i.e. Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Ask, AOL) based on the
designated keyword set. iCrossing generated a Position Analysis Report for each company within
the travel industry on the Fortune 500 list.
5. Creation of iCrossing Brand Scorecards

Based on the Position Analysis Reports, iCrossing generated Brand Scorecards by aggregating
the rankings of the companies on the first through the third pages of the major search engines. We
calculated and assigned to each company a specific score that appears on the Fortune 500. The
score demonstrates the natural search engine visibility of a company on the scale of 0-10. Where
a score of 2 indicates non-significant visibility, a score of 5 means moderate-high visibility, and a
score of 8 signifies high visibility in natural search.
This patent-pending index weighs the value of the natural search engine’s market share, the
page, the actual ranking, and the estimated monthly search volume to calculate the relative score
for each URL. For example, the algorithm gives a higher weight to a term with a high estimated
monthly search volume and a correspondingly high ranking than a term with a high ranking but only
a small number of estimated monthly searches. In addition, regardless of the estimated monthly
search volume, the formula also generates the score in a proportional manner with the associated
page rank and position to properly score the keywords and prevent one single word from radically
skewing the results.
6. Analysis of natural search engine visibility and identification of key competitors in natural search
Analyzing the visibility of Fortune 500 and websites visible for this keyword set, iCrossing identified
key competitors within the travel industry in terms of natural search. We then analyzed this
information and generated implications and recommendations.
7. Creation of Industry Index Report

The Search 500 Index report was written and refined based on the analyses and results contained
herein.
METHODOLOGY FLOWCHART
DEFINE IDENTIFY KEYWORD ANALYSIS POSITION ANALYSIS

REPORTS REPORTS
1. Identify Fortune 500 companies. 2. Identify non-branded keywords 3. Create Keyword Analysis Report 4. Create Position Analysis Report
pertaining to the travel industry. (KAR) based on identified keywords (PAR) to find out the online positions
to find highly visible websites. of Fortune 500 in search.
Define Identify Create Create

Industry Keywords KAR PAR
Build Analyze Create

Scorecard Visibility Reports
5. Create iCrossing Brand Scorecards 6. Analyze search engine visibility 7. Analyze data and create report.
for each Fortune 500 company to and identify key search competitors
analyze ranking. within the travel industry.
SCORECARD ANALYZE REPORT
MEDIA AND CONTENT CONTENT USAGE

INQUIRIES The content and statistics contained in the main body of this report may be used in publications and
presentations provided there is attribution to iCrossing, Inc. — Search 500 Index: Travel.
The complete appendixes for this report can be obtained by contacting iCrossing at
search500index@icrossing.com and may require acceptance of a Non-Disclosure Agreement.
ABOUT THIS REPORT

iCrossing’s Search 500 Index series is designed to provide iCrossing clients, marketers and
members of the media with analysis of new developments, trends and competitive activity in search
engine and interactive marketing. The report is derived from iCrossing’s experience and expertise
in performing search analytics and providing search marketing services for clients in the travel and
other industries.
DISCLAIMER
iCrossing performs natural search optimization for American Airlines and works in some capacity
with Hilton Hotels and Marriott International. These relationships in no way influenced the research
methodology or the report findings.
ABOUT ICROSSING
iCrossing is a different kind of digital marketing company. Driven by customer insight, the company
creates programs and engaging experiences designed to help brands be found, help them talk to their
customers, and help them achieve marketing success. Through a proven combination of talent and
technology, iCrossing helps its global client base – including 40 Fortune 500 companies like The Coca-
Cola Company – find solutions to their digital marketing challenges. Founded in 1998, the company
has 350 employees worldwide. iCrossing is headquartered in Scottsdale with U.S. offices in Atlanta,
Chicago, Dallas, New York and San Francisco, and U.K. offices in London and Brighton. Find out more
at www.icrossing.com.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS SEARCH 500 INDEX: TRAVEL

iCrossing has titled this report the Search 500 Index: Travel. The report has several goals: analyze
all industries from a natural search visibility standpoint; identify how each individual industry ranking
compares to the ranking of the current Fortune 500 list; and if the industry rankings do differ, determine
which companies should be considered the industry’s true online competitors, thus affecting future
marketing strategies. A keyword set of broad, product-and services-specific, consumer-orientated,
non-branded terms will be used to analyze each industry. Each keyword list will be included with its
respective industry Search 500 Index.
FORTUNE 500
The 2006 Fortune 500 list will be used to identify companies within each industry vertical. The Fortune
500 is a ranking of the top 500 United States corporations as measured by gross revenue. The list is
compiled and published annually by Fortune magazine (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/
fortune500/).
FORTUNE 500 TRAVEL

There were 12 travel companies represented within the 2006 Fortune 500, which have been extracted
from the full Fortune 500 list for analysis in this report.
BRAND SCORECARD
Based on the Position Analysis Reports, iCrossing generates Brand Scorecards by aggregating the
rankings of the companies on the first page or first through the third pages of the major search engines.
The score demonstrates the natural search engine visibility of a company on the scale of 0-10. Where a
score of 2 indicates non-significant visibility, a score of 5 represents moderate-to-high visibility in natural
search, and a score of 8 signifies high visibility.
APPENDIX The complete Appendix for this report can be obtained by contacting iCrossing at
search500index@icrossing.com and may require acceptance of a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Search 500 Index Travel

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Search 500 Index Travel

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SEARCH 500 INDEX: TRAVEL

WHERE IS THE FORTUNE 500 FOUND IN NATURAL SEARCH?

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................3

Implications and Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................4

Media and Content Inquiries .............................................................................................................................................................11

Glossary of Terms ..............................................................................................................................................................................12

Search Visibility Ranking as Change in Rank Among the Fortune

+ Number of links on other webpages pointing + PageRank (the value of a page

+ Age of the domain + A DMOZ directory listing

+ Number of links from .edu sites + A Yahoo! directory listing

What we found in this instance is as follows:

Main Domain 16,300 294,758 13 14,400 565 8 33

Main Domain 34,000 245,430 10 1,230 74 8 27

KEYWORD ANALYSIS REPORT: TRAVEL INDUSTRY

2. Identification of non-branded keywords pertaining to the travel industry

3. Creation of the Keyword Analysis Report (KAR)

4. Creation of the Position Analysis Reports (PAR)

5. Creation of iCrossing Brand Scorecards

7. Creation of Industry Index Report

DEFINE IDENTIFY KEYWORD ANALYSIS POSITION ANALYSIS

Define Identify Create Create

Build Analyze Create

SCORECARD ANALYZE REPORT

MEDIA AND CONTENT CONTENT USAGE

ABOUT THIS REPORT

GLOSSARY OF TERMS SEARCH 500 INDEX: TRAVEL

FORTUNE 500 TRAVEL

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen