Iremonger drew comparisons between our agency and “the wise peacemaker who marshals resources” to illustrate the point that search marketing must integrate with a brand’s traditional reach channels to utilise the SEO potential that exists in all online engagement moments.

“Historically an SEO agency may have existed outside of a brand’s circle of trust, acting as either a Saruman – powerful but unethical, Frodo – relentless and resourceful, or Golem – where the ends would be used to justify the means,” he described. “Now SEO has been invited into the circle of trust and for the future we’re looking at an even more aligned partner model.”

Head of Natural Search Adam Skalak expanded on this, explaining that through the introduction of both the Panda and Penguin algorithm updates, Google has made clear its agenda: to serve great content and stop gaming users.

“While technological and keyword optimisation are still key to successful SEO programmes, influencer engagement and consumer engagement are increasingly important. This means that search agencies need to work closely with real people – both customers and online influencers – to earn natural links and encourage user and social signals.”

In short, by working with clients’ PR, direct marketing and social teams, search experts can tap into and amplify marketing activities to generate SEO value, keep messaging consistent and – key for any business – make resources work harder for the brand.

“If all the good stuff you’re doing isn’t contributing to your SERPs then you’re effectively throwing money away,” said Iremonger, echoing the sentiment of iCrossing’s Head of Media Sam Fenton Elstone who earlier in the day outlined the importance of data efficiency to counter the cost of increased consumer complexity.

Keeping segmentation real

Alongside iCrossing’s Chief Client Officer Tom Jones, Fenton Elstone argued that the proliferation of devices and channels, combined with the accelerating pace of change, has resulted in an increasingly fragmented digital media market.

But as Google’s Mark Howe asserted through his ‘all screen, all time, all audiences’ approach, within this complexity there lies great opportunity.

“The key to making sense of this increasingly fragmented digital landscape is audience access,” explained Fenton Elstone. “Whereas in the past implied intent through media context and demographic signifiers was central to online advertising, with real insights from active search intent we now know much more about consumer behaviour, which can be tracked across devices.”

Quoting from eConsultancy’s Jordan Elkind, Fenton Elstone urged brands to “keep it real” when working with segmentation: Creating a strategy that is relevant – identifying the variables that best show the differences in your customers’ behaviour, efficient – building segments broad enough to capture the majority of your customers, actionable – sense-checking to ensure you will be able to identify and market to your preferred user, and lasting so you can build on learnings.

Speaking at the iCrossing Client Summit 2013, Coplin held that we’ve reached a “plateau of mediocrity” in the enterprise world – a state which can block creativity.

“There are some wonderful things happening in the consumer world that can inform how we work in our professional lives. Many people have a better computer at home than the one that they’re provided with at work and the fact that some companies are still forbidding staff access to social media channels indicates that they don’t understand how the flow of information through such connectivity works to empower people and organisations.”

Coplin pointed to the QWERTY keyboard – originally designed to slow people down at a time when typewriter heads would jam – as an example of everyday office design that is no longer fit for purpose, adding that office layout and processes can also have a negative effect on creativity.

“Every day we work with the same people in same space, solving the same problems in the same way, and this doesn’t encourage new ideas. Open-plan layouts, in which screens are visible to all, pose another problem – they reflect the law of the wild. You’re as likely to step out of the box and work differently as an antelope is to isolate itself on an African plain.”

“The truth is that it’s much easier to be productive than creative – to play e-mail ping pong all day long – but we need to avoid this arrogance of the present. If there’s no better answer to a question of process than “because we’ve always done it that way” then it probably warrants a re-think.”

Humanising the web

After a glimpse into the Microsoft Research labs – where a 3D projector, working prototype of the Starship Holodeck and live translation make up just a few of the projects in progress – Coplin left the audience with a list of actions to apply to their own organisations:

 Re-imagine your world – “If the DVLA can have serious conversations about the phasing out of tax discs – one of its main sources of income since 1921 – then so can your organisation re-think the status quo.”

Embrace natural expectations – “We need to rekindle that naive optimism of youth and build on our expectations of what technology can do for us.”

Empower users – “Ask what it would take to make a customer successful when they use your platform or service and put this at the heart of what you do.”

Think human plus machine – “Technology is here to help us become greater than the sum of our parts – critical thinking is key to how we use this in everyday life. Equip people with the skills and tools to use technology effectively”

Consider marketing as a context sport – “Understand intent, why people would want to interact with your brand on certain devices, and build content and messaging around this.”

Make value explicit – “To move out of the ‘creepy valley’ we have found ourselves in with data protection, we need to offer a value exchange. Be explicit with consumers about the use of data and the benefit to them and put user experience first.”

‘Frazzing’, explained Howe – Managing Director of Agency Operations in North & Central Europe – is a term coined by psychologists to describe the way consumers “frantically and ineffectively multitask” when coping with numerous screens and a proliferation of information. And how we plan media and advertising to match this behaviour is key to our effectiveness as online marketers.

With 75% UK smartphone penetration predicted for the end of 2013 and one in four of us now a three-screener, our attention is more divided than it ever has been. But Howe sees in this complex connectivity an exciting opportunity that allows marketing to move from measures of awareness to those of real relationships and accountability.

“Once the noble art of distraction, consumers were traditionally separated by time and place from being able to act on advertising messages. Now, through data and two-way engagement, we can build a much clearer picture of consumer choices so brands can engage in a more meaningful dialogue.”

Engineer serendipity

Outlining the case for investing in technology and innovation to help your brand deliver relevant messages when and where it matters, Howe drew on research showing that 45% of people check their smart phone whilst shopping, with 20% changing their minds about a purchase as a result. “It’s the perfect opportunity for brands to engage with their consumers, yet 43% of top 100% companies do not have a mobile optimised site.”

This increased connectivity shifts the balance of power from seller to buyer, with the latter now able to listen to and translate consumer intent before delivering a message. And Howe made clear that at Google, adaptive design is considered fundamental to successful marketing strategy.

The search engine recently launched Enhanced Campaigns, offering a form of “’engineered serendipity” to help advertisers target their potential customer at the right time, on the right device and at the right location.

YouTube is also evolving to meet customer needs through TrueView advertising, which allows viewers to skip adverts after just five seconds. Less intrusive for the viewer and cheaper for the advertiser – who is charged based on view time – it’s an approach that brands have embraced. None more so than VW, who recently supported the launch of a new Beetle with a five-second-and-out YouTube ad.

Invest in insights and innovation

All of the data that we can mine from such services not only helps brands and their partners to build more targeted media planning, but can also be fed back into creative to define what that media looks like.

Indeed, this insight is so central to the future of marketing that Howe believes we should be looking to identify ways of better sharing data between clients and agencies, among thought leaders and crucially, with those who know how to interpret this in a way that is meaningful to business.

“We need to rethink traditional remuneration models between agencies and clients so this important work can be done properly, invest in people and skills and foster a culture of innovation and testing.”

Drawing on over 10 years of international marketing and strategy experience, Research Director Paderni’s current work centres on upcoming trends in media and advertising that lead to increasing fragmentation.

The traditional marketing model of attention, interest, desire and action, he argued, presents major limitations when faced with today’s perpetually connected customers. Little surprise given that it dates back over 100 years to 1904.

“The most notable shortcoming of this approach is that it views the single sale as an end in itself,” Paderni asserted, adding that social technology now enables us to directly and effectively nurture the relationships between brand and customer to foster all-important brand loyalty.

“The paid, owned and earned framework also fails to utilise our new understanding of the marketing cycle and new consumer complexity. You’ll never hear someone saying: “I think I’d like to have a paid media experience now.”

As people use technology to discover, explore, buy and connect with other human beings in a non-linear way, the framework that Paderni encourages marketers to adopt centres on the customer:

“Identify and structure internal teams by the value they offer to the customer: Are they involved in reach – letting consumers know that your brand is there and can serve them, depth – providing information based on consumer insights, or relationships – engaged in that valuable brand customer dialogue?”

These pillars form the new marketing RaDaR, and Paderni’s actions from each should provide food for thought among those responsible for organisational structure:

Reach

According to the North American Technographics Consumer Deep Dive Survey Q3 2012, 80% of 4,506 US online adults asked go through friends and family to find out about new brands, products and services, with 79% turning to online searches.

“Think about how online, offline and recommendation-based marketing can work together to improve efficiencies and consumer experience.”

Depth

When exploring and buying, most people turn to depth channels, with 58% using the internet on a desktop, laptop or netbook to first research a product or service, compared with just 6% carrying out research in an offline store.

“Merge your brand’s offline and digital worlds to offer consumers enhanced experiences and use online data into consumer behaviour to help inform the way you plan offline activity – for example the layout of your stores.”

Relationships

For staying in touch with brands, customers use relationship channels, with 46% joining the brand’s e-mail list, 31% the mailing list and 24% becoming a fan of the brand on Facebook.

“Accept that there’s less control in this space – delegate responsibility for this experience to staff who will be the human voice of your brand and the community itself.”

Our focus now is shifting from a link-building approach to a relationship-building one, away from simply sending out emails and instead inviting influential bloggers to networking events; having face-to-face conversations about what stories matter both to them and, most importantly, the client. But how do you go about doing this whilst keeping in line with the client’s overall business objectives?

In my opinion, the next generation of link-building, and SEO in general, should be about exceeding the client’s expectations. Rather than simply pushing links to a site, work on pulling them in, by forging creative partnerships with influential and relevant members of the online community who can advocate the brand’s objectives.

Start by utilising existing assets, such as existing press releases, PR efforts and mentions of the brand online. The overall goal should be to maximise the potential of current content-based assets from a search perspective, ensuring the content is enticing enough to naturally pull links towards the site. Forging relationships with external influencers is definitely a long-term approach and one that will ultimately reap benefits as you build a solid working rapport.

An innovative approach to this would be to create an event that brings together a group of influential bloggers and a key member of the client’s team. Set up a video camera and discuss how the latest industry news ties in with the client’s business objectives. For example, a finance roundtable could centre on topics such as ‘viable business finance in the credit crunch era’, whereas a fashion discussion could ask ‘is vintage style really a thing of the past?’

The resulting content, both in video and written formats, can then be placed on the client’s website, linked to and promoted by the external influencers involved, hence naturally creating links. By not restricting the theme of a blogger’s content, each piece of coverage will be unique, can be tailored to suit every blogger’s fan base and provide relevant, naturally linkable content, to share via Twitter, Facebook and Linkedin. It is also worth mentioning that, as an agency, iCrossing seeks to work closely with influential journalists who are well placed to take the story to the next level.

There is also the potential to optimise the content from a search perspective and to increase the number of qualified site visits which makes it visible to the client’s potential customers, with content that will promote the client as thought leaders in their industry.

But what of ‘guest posts’ and their potential to be useful digital assets? The priority for any SEO team is to continually create fresh, insightful, newsworthy content that is more likely to be attractive to powerful news sites such as The Huffington Post, The Independent or The Guardian. Newsworthy content is more likely to be shared socially, which creates a more PR-led approach.

This content should be in line with a client’s objectives and be relevant to the websites they are promoted to.  This enables a client to establish a relationship with their intended audience and should be adhered to if the industry is serious about mitigating the increasing risks associated with link-building. We need to evolve beyond the tactic of creating guest posts and building links to forging relationships by remaining innovative and flexible in an evolving industry.

Why do people do this?

Having my phone on me whilst watching television allows me to instantly comment on live sports events, announce who I think will be fired in the latest episode of The Apprentice, or fill my brain with pub quiz trivia using my IMDb app. Did you know that Christopher Nolan, director of the Dark Knight trilogy is also producer of the new Superman (Man of Steel) movie?

Our attention has become fragmented and we can no longer can sit in front of the television and do just that (unless you are watching an episode of Game of Thrones where 100% attention is required). We are now all very good at multi-tasking and can quite easily watch TV, chat on whatsapp with our friends and shop on our tablets for the latest pair of noise cancelling headphones.

That’s why the Television has evolved

Like the mobile phone, TV has had to evolve to gain the attention of the viewer to offer more than just the ability to watch a programme and change channels. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that mobile phones simply made calls and sent text messages. We can do far more now.

Similarly, the new era of Smart TV gives you the chance to do much more than just watch a programme.  Most now come equipped with pre-installed apps, like Lovefilm, BBC iPlayer, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and a whole lot more. Market Research shows that by 2016 consumer use of connected TV’s will be over 890 million.

You can now share things on Facebook, Tweet about a programme or YouTube a full movie trailer to a teaser you just saw on the telly directly by launching the apps on your television.

How can brands get involved?

There is a fantastic opportunity here for brands to use the platform being offered by Smart TV’s to create apps which can offer a richer experience to viewers and allows more engagement with their audiences beyond the traditional 30 second ad.

It’s new to the market, but is already happening. Brands like RightMove have a great TV app (which I used recently) that allows the whole family to get involved in house hunting. Being able to see floor plans and pictures of accommodations in large clear images on a TV screen is much better viewing than on a laptop. Marks and Spencer also have a pilot app available which focuses on editorial videos for fashion, technology and Food.

Measuring What You Do on Television

Measuring a brand’s TV campaigns has never been an easy task. While millions of pounds are spent on primetime advertising to gain the attention of their audiences, brands are still unable to decipher the true value of that ad in terms of views, engagement and sales. With the potential of Smart TV’s and the right implementation, all that can change and brands can start measuring exactly how much impact a TV campaign has on viewers.

Imagine airing a TV ad  for a new product  and within minutes being able to see  how many people were influenced by the ad and, possibly, how many went on to purchase the new product as a direct result. While Shazam recently denied claims that they’re developing their app to allow people to view and purchase clothing  worn by celebrities and newsreaders  on TV, clearly the technology is now sophisticated enough to do this to be able to do this.

Affiliates will also begin to delve into this space in the next few years as their budgets grow; they are already running television ads after all. The demand for consumption through TV means that brands will partner with affiliates to fulfil their presence in this space.  With the demand for content consumption through TVs so high, it is going to be the new relationships with brands and affiliates within this space that is going to be an interesting watch over the next few months.

A key fact is that users won’t be seeing more ads than before, they should simply be seeing more relevant ads. In general I don’t want my social feeds interrupted by advertising, but if it’s going to happen I’d rather the ads at least be relevant and problem solving. For instance, I tweet that there’s nowhere in Brighton to get a decent cup of tea and later spot a promoted tweet from Small Batch about their loose leaf pots. This kind of targeting should improve the user experience on Twitter and help brands reach the right people.

If it sounds a bit creepy, consider this – keyword targeting is still based purely on publically available information which brands could find manually if they really wanted to. So although it’s a step up in how Twitter uses your online behaviour to target advertising, it’s still nowhere near the Facebook style approach of delving into your private data, or slyly changing your privacy settings whenever an update is rolled out. Keyword targeting has the potential to alienate some Twitter users, but honestly the most shocking thing about it is that it’s actually still pretty unintrusive. Of the two social media kings, Twitter remains the winner in terms of putting the user first.

So how will keyword targeting work in practice? Twitter’s example is about a user tweeting about their favourite band’s new album. Let’s say I am the user and the band is St Vincent. If St Vincent is playing a show in my local area soon; the venue could run a geo-targeted campaign to serve ads for the show to local folks like me who are tweeting about her music. Sounds good so far – relevant ads should lead to more engagement and ticket sales, and a better Twitter experience for me and other St Vincent fans.

But what if it’s not my favourite band that I’m tweeting about? What if it’s my least favourite artist (maybe Bieber?), and I’m complaining about how much I hate his new album? I’d like to get a heads up about St Vincent playing in Brighton for sure, but I really don’t care what Justin Bieber is doing right now.

So for me, the key question  is just how intelligent will the keyword targeting be? Twitter don’t seem to have gone into detail on this yet, but as the venue owner I wouldn’t want to just target ads to local people talking about St Vincent. I’d want to combine it with interest based targeting and only serve ads to people who are both talking about St Vincent and following her account. That would be targeted advertising that might just work for the brands and the users in equal measure.

My prediction is that the success of keyword targeted promotional tweets will vary according to how well each brand uses them, and it is likely to pay particular dividends for more niche brands. Making the most of Twitter to reach potential customers and boost engagement is about being super reactive, and I think a mantra of “think before you tweet” will be important for advertisers here. If you are McDonalds and you serve location based tweets to anyone who mentions the word hungry, you might just freak people out. But if you’re the Regent Street Apple Store and you’ve got an amazing limited offer on the MacBook Air, targeting Londoners with PC woes might be your ticket to Twitter advertising success.

Why I was surprised

Initially, I was shocked. Google have a very expansive list of affiliate clients in the States and they were looking to expand quite aggressively in the UK over the next few years. They had also made key acquisitions of flagship partners to help them draw more clients in.

I have often been asked by clients for my view of the Google Affiliate Network and my response has always been that “they are still a little way off on their offering, especially their user interface,” but I believed that they would sort this out in the next couple of years and establish themselves as genuine competition for the already established networks in the UK.

Why it makes sense

Having spent some time thinking and discussing the news with some peers in the affiliate space, I think that this move probably isn’t as shocking as I initially thought.

Google decided to enter the market in the UK a little late when there were already 4-5 really well established affiliate networks. By this time the barriers to entry were so high that Google would have to do something really drastic to make an impact. It looked like they did, but unfortunately it didn’t pay off.

Price War?

Although the reasons for the closure of the Google Affiliate Network are unclear it is most likely that the service was not generating a feasible amount of revenue for the network. Google had some high profile clients who had moved from more established networks probably to save money and/or to benefit from Google’s technologies. It is clear for this strategy to work they would need to sign up clients in volumes to make the model work and I think that they were unable to make the impact they had hoped and the clients didn’t come quick enough for them to sustain this model.

The Interface

The user interface shouldn’t be overlooked as one of the reasons for Google’s failure to establish themselves as a player in the affiliate industry. The top networks have spent thousands on developing their affiliate interfaces for both the publishers and the advertisers to be able to get the information they want quickly and efficiently and use the range of tools to promote their brands.

The Google Affiliate Network came along with a rehashed version of their adwords interface which failed to meet the expectations within the industry. I had expected Google to work this out especially as they are one of the late entrants into the industry and therefore needed to make a big impact with something unique and over and above the existing offering.

Lack of Understanding

Ultimately I believe Google failed in this venture because they didn’t really take the time to understand the Affiliate market place and the difference in culture between the US and the UK when it comes to serving clients and affiliates.

This will be a sense of achievement for the top UK networks that have successfully defended their territory from a company of the magnitude of Google and, I’m sure, the sales teams will probably be working overtime now to contact the advertisers that will inevitably leave the Google Affiliate Network in the near future.

It is a shame that Google did not establish themselves as a key player in this space as competition is always a very healthy thing and it’s what keeps the people on their toes to continuously innovate. Having said that, a clear cultural understanding of both the market and product is key, which is what let Google down on this occasion.

I am, I hate to say, one of ‘those people’ who, at times, can be seen to run for my Google safety blanket and dive into my handbag for my beloved phone to settle a factoid discussion – the height of the Scottish lock in the 2013 6 nations? Did Larsson live to see the publication of his first book? The capital of Hungary? You get the picture. I am not proud of it but I am of the generation where instant access to a vast wealth of information has been readily, and easily, available. To consider something ‘ungoogleable’ – preposterous!

But it exists! And some people do it on purpose! *Queue gasp!*

Further reading into this ‘ungoogleable’ phenomenon lead me to discover a so called ‘ungoogleable’ band called –isq (nope, I’ve never heard of them either). Band member, Irene Serre explained that,

“We didn’t want to give everything away straightaway. If you want to hear about us you’ll need to try just a little bit harder. And then when you do actually find us online we have lots in place.”

I couldn’t resist! A quick search for –isq – true, nothing come up due to the structure of the search term. Insert some speech marks with “ –isq” and the brand is brought up, in 0.25 seconds no less. On Amazon and iTunes it’s an instant search result, minus the speech marks. I can understand Serre’s view, as we proceed throughout the digital revolution the world is increasingly becoming smaller, content is shared more freely, easily and we are able to get it 24/7. Would a little bit of anonymity and secrecy online be a good thing? We’ve all heard the horror stories of job seekers going for the job of their dreams and then the potential employer doing a little bit of a Google search and finding that their perfect candidate has had a shady past, the current misfortune of Paris Brown illustrating that point clearly. I can completely understand this from a personal point of view but what about brands? Surely, ‘hiding’ your online presence seriously limits the commercial return from your actions or do certain brands feel that being harder to find increases their desirability by being exclusive?

A quick search through the Superbrands list seems to prove this false; all have very active online presences. Quick searches for exclusive, luxury brands such as Breitling, Rolls Royce and Chanel again proves this not to be the case as all of these brands show that they have heavily invested in their online identities, ensuring that their websites and content instantly reflect the quality of the brand and its value. Whilst the idea that there could be luxury brands, restaurants, clubs that have no presence on Google is an interesting concept, commercially today, it’s not a concept that I could fathom.

So, could something actually be ‘ungoogleable’? As in the case of –isq, the minute that you have a presence online, search engines can find you – such is life. True, you may have to be a little bit more of a savvy searcher but you can find the band and their related content, and it’s pretty straightforward on the leading commerce site which of course will influence search results too. From my view, you’re shooting yourself in the foot commercially speaking if you are not utilising the power and opportunity that search engines provide you and I doubt that there are many brands going down this route. There may be incidents where you are at a disadvantage, for example a brand name with a broad context. Sticking to the music theme, one of my favourite bands, The National, are battling in an obvious competitive landscape with a multitude of newspapers, horse races, theatres and venues to stave off. But clever optimisation, engaging content and most likely an influence from my search history and social data, brings them up to top spot for me! Search bliss! Indeed, the Urban Dictionary’s definition of ‘ungoogleable’ recognises it not only as failing to return results from a search query on a search engine but also for producing an overwhelmingly high return of results which effectively renders search anonymity. It’s all about the first page!

Ultimately, I am a lazy searcher – there I have said it. I genuinely get frustrated when I do not get the results that I want through a search.  I love it when a brand understands me; my search behaviour; what I want, when I want it. I love it when they take the time to invest in long tail search terms, provide engaging content that I am genuinely interested in across a number of channels and react to real time events.  It took ages to find out how tall the Scottish lock was whilst watching the game down the pub with mates – 6ft 9in in case you were interested! I would have been over the moon if the national teams had made easily available key stats on their players, and optimised this, or a quick fact sheet around the 6 nations for pub based discussions. It’s simple content but shows a clear understanding of your customers – we don’t always want to revert to Wikipedia!

Today, search has evolved. It’s become second nature. We’re good at it and we want the results straight away, in the right context. As Amol Rajan puts it in his recent Guardian article, ‘It used to be that Google was constantly in the news; now Google constantly is the news.’ Search is marketing! Brands need to advance beyond just simple optimisation in order to reap rewards and remain connected with their customers. Being ‘ungoogleable’ just isn’t an option.

The idea of being ‘ungoogleable’ really jumped out to me as an interesting concept that I would love to get your feedback on below, what do you think?

Lately there has been a lot of talk about mobile optimised websites. Mobile usage is on the rise. A recent audit of our own clients showed an average growth rate in mobile traffic share of 125.6% from 2011 to 2012, with retail representing the largest growth. We also found markedly lower conversion rates on mobile compared to desktop and tablet, this is partially due to default user behaviour on mobile devices, but it also shows a clear opportunity for site owners who are committed to improving mobile optimisation and engagement.

There are many benefits to having a mobile optimised website, not only will it improve the customer experience, ultimately improving key metrics like conversion rate and cross device traffic but ignoring mobile optimisation can have a negative impact on search rankings.

There is one debate that many are still struggling with – responsive design or standalone mobile site?

Ever since Ethane Marcotte wrote his influential article “Responsive Web Design” back in May 2010, technologists, designers and developers have been waving their flags of glory for responsive design. And you can see why, as it appears on first impressions a very elegant design philosophy and development solution.

Responsive design works by using relatively straightforward CSS media queries to detect a devices screen width and adjust styling of the website so that it is optimised for a mobile or a tablet screen. From a technology perspective, what this equates to is building and maintaining one website with content optimised for multiple devices based on the viewport size.

Whilst it is possible to hide content in the source code and trigger display dependent on device, the typical philosophy behind responsive design is that sites should be designed with responsive principles in mind. In other words it’s mobile first thinking. If a piece of content is not necessary on a mobile, it probably isn’t necessary on a desktop. Thus the user gets a consistent yet optimised experience across devices.

On the other end of the spectrum a standalone mobile site is typically held at a distinct URL (e.g. m.example.com). Users are redirected to the mobile version of the site using device detection techniques whenever they try to access the site on a mobile device. This generally gives the site owner a lot more flexibility as to what content they display to the user.

Usability guru Jakob Nielson is one proponent who suggests that the best solution is to have a separate mobile site. He claims that user needs for mobile and desktop are different and thus currently a separate mobile site is the correct approach.

So who is right? Let’s take a moment to weigh up the realities of the debate by evaluating some commonly held beliefs.

1. Responsive Design is cheaper

One problem with responsive design is that it is quite idealistic in its assumptions. In the real world most businesses had their main site designed and built before mobile was a requirement. They didn’t have responsive design principles in mind. It therefore becomes very difficult to adapt their site through responsive design without significantly altering the design and code base of the main site.  Whilst on the surface responsive design is the cheaper option, in many contexts it could end up being more expensive to implement.

Having said this, in many cases it is more economically viable to choose responsive design. For example a relatively simple site, one that lends itself to responsive due to its pre-existing grid structure and code base, or a fresh site build.

But the point remains there isn’t a hard and fast answer as to which is more cost effective. Agencies and clients have to work on a case-by-case basis.

2. Responsive Design is better for SEO

A single URL solution with responsive design may better preserve link equity, but this approach often doesn’t suit already established sites or the ability to display different content to mobile users.

In fact, while Google states that responsive design is their favored approach, there is nothing to suggest that a separate mobile site will not perform as well within search results: the advent of switchboard tags and the speed benefits may in the future swing the balance in favor of having a separate mobile offering.

Mobile searchers also often have different intent and will search differently to desktop users. They are likely to use more local based search terms & shorter synonyms. Brands need to evaluate whether their site is catering for different types of intent and insure the mobile version is optimised for mobile specific keywords.

3. Responsive Design creates a better user experience

In many contexts responsive design leads to a seamless experience across devices for the user, but in other contexts mobile specific content may be more appropriate.

But here is the bottom line. Neither responsive design or standalone sites are user solutions. The user of your website (unless they are a web developer) cares no more about whether your site is powered by PHP or ASP.NET as they do whether your mobile site is realised through responsive design or a standalone solution. Both are technology solutions. Ultimately you could reach the same interface solution and deliver identical user experiences either as a standalone mobile website or using responsive design.

Conclusion

So in summary, there is one truth we can be certain of; mobile marketing matters. Business owners can no longer afford to forget about mobile optimisation in a rapidly expanding market. Customers are increasingly accessing your website from mobile devices and will continue to do so in 2013. What is important when it comes to deciding between responsive design and a standalone site is to properly understand your customer and their needs and put them at the heart of your mobile strategy.

For more information contact results@icrossing.co.uk