• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Search 500 index report   full report no appendix
 

Search 500 index report full report no appendix

on

  • 385 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
385
Views on SlideShare
385
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Search 500 index report   full report no appendix Search 500 index report full report no appendix Document Transcript

    • SEARCH 500 INDEX: AUTOMOTIVEWHERE IS THE FORTUNE 500 FOUND IN NATURAL SEARCH?JANUARY 22. 2007
    • SEARCH 500 INDEX: AUTOMOTIVE JANUARY 2007TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................3 Implications and Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................4 Analysis...............................................................................................................................................................................................5 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................................10 Media and Content Inquiries .............................................................................................................................................................12 Glossary of Terms ..............................................................................................................................................................................13 Appendix .........................................................................................................................................................Available Upon Request© COPYRIGHT 2007. ICROSSING, INC. | WWW.ICROSSING.COM ATLANTA | CHICAGO | DALLAS | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SCOTTSDALE 1.866.620.3780 2
    • SEARCH 500 INDEX: AUTOMOTIVE JANUARY 2007EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this index is to quantify the natural search visibility of the 36 Fortune 500 automotive companies, compare Fortune 500 automotive 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: Automotive. For the Search 500 Index: Automotive, 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 non-significant visibility, a score of 5 means moderate-high visibility, and a score of 8 signifies high visibility in natural search. Please see the methodology section for more details. An appendix with a full list of both keywords and URLs is available upon request. QUESTIONS WE ASKED How visible are Fortune 500 automotive companies in natural search? Does leadership in the traditional marketplace translate to leadership in natural search visibility? What strategies can Fortune 500 automotive companies implement to improve their natural search visibility? KEY FINDINGS In general, Fortune 500 automotive companies are not reaching their full potential for natural search visibility, and are missing opportunities to leverage natural search to strengthen their brands and drive sales. There is a significant gap between market performance and search engine visibility of Fortune 500 automotive companies. Only 11 (31%) out of All of the Fortune 500 Very few Fortune 500 the 36 Fortune 500 automotive companies automotive companies automotive companies were outranked by the appeared in the list analyzed had a score comparable top 36 of 100 websites most above 2.00, with the natural ranked websites visible for the keyword highest score being for this core set of set of the most common 3.59 attained by automotive keywords. automotive-related General Motors. search terms. + General Motors was the outright leader among Fortune 500 automotive companies for natural search visibility. + B-to-c companies, especially online auto dealers and consumer-facing brands (e.g. General Motors, Ford, etc.), are doing a far better job than b-to-b automotive suppliers in terms of achieving natural search engine visibility for this keyword set. While this keyword set does not include all auto parts potentially sold by automotive suppliers, it does encompass the leading search terms by volume that are applicable to both b-to-c and b-to-b automotive companies. + Online information and aggregation companies outperformed other companies in terms of search visibility, including general information sites such as Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.com), auto-related sites such as Edmunds (www.edmunds.com), and car loan sites such as E-LOAN (www.eloan.com). + Emphasis on and investment in online strategies did pay off in terms of search visibility (e.g., Cooper Tire & Rubber, General Motors). + Major online Fortune 500 companies, such as Yahoo! and MSN, achieved natural search visibility across multiple industries, including the automotive industry.© COPYRIGHT 2007. ICROSSING, INC. | WWW.ICROSSING.COM ATLANTA | CHICAGO | DALLAS | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SCOTTSDALE 1.866.620.3780 3
    • SEARCH 500 INDEX: AUTOMOTIVE JANUARY 2007IMPLICATIONS AND Based on the results of the analysis, iCrossing recommends that Fortune 500 automotive companies increase their focus on improving their natural search visibility. Specifically, we recommend thatRECOMMENDATIONS 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 potential competitors in their space. + Consider partnering with or buying media on relevant natural search ranking companies, such as high ranking informational sites, in order to garner as much residual traffic as possible. + Work to improve their natural search visibility by adding more consumer-based content to their sites (such as user reviews and opinions), which also will allow for increased social tagging opportunities. + Conduct in-depth, search-based competitive analyses to derive as many insights as possible from the strategies and tactics of industry leaders.© COPYRIGHT 2007. ICROSSING, INC. | WWW.ICROSSING.COM ATLANTA | CHICAGO | DALLAS | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SCOTTSDALE 1.866.620.3780 4
    • SEARCH 500 INDEX: AUTOMOTIVE JANUARY 2007ANALYSIS Despite the fact that Fortune 500 automotive companies spend heavily on advertising, both online and off, most rank poorly in terms of natural search visibility. iCrossing reached this conclusion after analyzing a set of 116 keywords (based on a broad range of automotive terms that comprised products, services, dealers, and lenders) and a comprehensive list of URLs that represented the Fortune 500 automotive companies. Based on the automotive companies’ Brand Scorecard results, only 11 (31%) out of the 36 companies analyzed appeared in natural search results. The automotive companies analyzed ranged from 2.07 (Oshkosh Truck) to the highest of 3.59 (General Motors) on a scale of 0 – 10. This finding indicates that most of the automotive companies on the Fortune 500 list have not paid adequate attention to their natural search engine strategies and hence lack visibility in a major online marketing medium where most search clicks are on natural links. When looking more broadly at websites that rank for this set of terms, we found that the competitive landscape of the automotive industry is significantly different in terms of natural search rankings than that of the traditional Fortune 500, with very few of the major manufacturers even breaking into the top 100 for natural search visibility. Search Visibility Ranking as Change in Rank Among the Fortune Fortune 500 Fortune 500 Compared to Other Fortune Scores 500 Automotive Companies Based Ranking Automotive Company 500 Automotive Companies on Search Engine Visibility 1 1 General Motors 3.59 Same Rank 2 6 AutoNation 2.71 4 3 20 CarMax 2.62 17 4 2 Ford Motor 2.50 2 5 9 Paccar 2.27 4 6 11 Navistar International 2.26 5 7 15 Sonic Automotive 2.13 8 8 5 Goodyear Tire & Rubber 2.12 3 9 19 Asbury Automotive Group 2.10 10 10 34 Cooper Tire & Rubber 2.08 24 11 26 Oshkosh Truck 2.07 15 NA 3 Johnson Controls NA NA NA 4 Delphi NA NA NA 7 Lear NA NA NA 8 Visteon NA NA NA 10 TRW Automotive Holdings NA NA NA 12 United Auto Group NA NA NA 13 Dana NA NA NA 14 ArvinMeritor NA NA NA 17 Autoliv NA NA NA 18 Group 1 Automotive NA NA NA 16 Federal-Mogul NA NA NA 21 Tenneco NA NA NA 22 BorgWarner NA NA NA 23 Tower Automotive NA NA NA 24 American Axle & Mfg. NA NA NA 25 Lithia Motors NA NA NA 27 Exide Technologies NA NA NA 28 Fleetwood Enterprises NA NA NA 29 Thor Industries NA NA NA 30 Carlisle NA NA NA 31 Hayes Lemmerz NA NA NA 32 Dura Automotive Systems NA NA NA 33 Metaldyne NA NA NA 35 Rush Enterprises NA NA NA 36 Modine Manufacturing NA NA Note: Companies receiving NA as their score had no natural search presence for the keyword set identified, indicating a lack of either relevance based on the keyword set (an issue we strive to avoid by continuously refining the keyword list) or natural search engine optimization efforts.© COPYRIGHT 2007. ICROSSING, INC. | WWW.ICROSSING.COM ATLANTA | CHICAGO | DALLAS | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SCOTTSDALE 1.866.620.3780 5
    • SEARCH 500 INDEX: AUTOMOTIVE JANUARY 2007 There are some underlying explanations for this lack of overall visibility. Since a majority of the Fortune 500 automotive firms are b-to-b companies, it is understandable that they are not highly-visible for the keyword set identified. While the keywords are all highly competitive broad terms and related to their business, they are also more relevant for companies looking to sell directly to consumers. To expand on this concept, the list does not include all possible automotive parts a b-to-b company might sell, yet it does encompass the core automotive industry terms garnering the highest search volumes, which are applicable to both types of automotive businesses. Thus, when comparing Fortune 500 automotive companies to each other based on their visibility scores, it is not surprising to see b-to-c (auto dealers and brands) companies such as GM, Ford, AutoNation, and CarMax ranking higher. However, not all b-to-b companies were outranked by b-to-c companies. For example, Paccar, Navistar International and Oshkosh Truck – all b-to-b companies – ranked 5th, 6th and 11th respectively in natural search visibility. Interestingly, b-to-c dealership holding companies, each represented by multiple individual URLs, demonstrated widely different results. United Auto Group (115 URLs), Group 1 Automotive (114 URLs), and Lithia Motors (116 URLs) all had no natural search visibility, while AutoNation (1 URL), CarMax (1 URL), Sonic Automotive (162 URLs), and Asbury Automotive Group (102 URLs) ranked 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 9th, respectively, far outranking their counterparts. Given the significant investment that the majority of dealership holding companies have made in building their Web presence, as evidenced by the breadth of URLs, a corresponding emphasis on natural search rankings might be expected across the board. The high rankings that some dealership companies achieved therefore represent a significant competitive advantage. Goodyear Tire & Rubber and Cooper Tire & Rubber were essentially neck and neck in the race for natural search engine visibility among the Fortune 500 competitive set. While Goodyear Tire & Rubber dropped three positions in search visibility to 8th place as compared to its 5th place Fortune 500 ranking. On the other hand, Cooper Tire & Rubber increased its relative rank by 24 places, going from 34th place in the Fortune 500 automotive group to 10th place in the natural search engine visibility ranking among this same group, clearly benefiting from a well thought-out online strategy. Cooper offers its content-filled site in both Flash and HTML versions, the latter being much easier for search engine spiders to crawl and index. Developing highly-relevant content accessible to spiders is a strategy that other companies in this category should emulate. While other search engine optimization strategies also should be considered, on this point at least, Cooper Tire & Rubber has shown success in catching up to its much larger competition. It will be interesting to monitor whether Cooper sees an increase in its market share and revenues in the next year as a result of increased natural search engine visibility.© COPYRIGHT 2007. ICROSSING, INC. | WWW.ICROSSING.COM ATLANTA | CHICAGO | DALLAS | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SCOTTSDALE 1.866.620.3780 6
    • SEARCH 500 INDEX: AUTOMOTIVE JANUARY 2007 When comparing Fortune 500 automotive companies against each other on the basis of their first page rankings alone, General Motors, including the broad universe of GM brand URLs, appears as the clear winner, capturing 45 percent of all analyzed first-page natural search rankings. PERCENTAGE OF FIRST PAGE RANKED TERMS FOR TOP 11 FORTUNE 500 AUTO COMPANIES COOPER TIRE & RUBBER 4% GOODYEAR 5% SONIC AUTOMOTIVE 2% NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL 5% PACCAR GM 5% 45% FORD 14% CARMAX 9% AUTO NATION 11% Overall, we see a balanced share of different types of Fortune 500 automotive companies ranked in natural search visibility, including two automakers (GM and Ford), four auto dealership holding companies (AutoNation, CarMax, Sonic Automotive, and Asbury Automotive Group), three truck companies (PACCAR, Navistar International, and Oshkosh Truck), and two tire companies (Goodyear Tire & Rubber and Cooper Tire & Rubber). This finding underscores the degree of competitiveness in this category. It also indicates that the keyword set represents a sufficiently broad spectrum of automotive linguistics, based on the diverse nature of businesses achieving visibility. Thus, those companies found to be less visible than their competition should re-evaluate their online strategies and obtain insights from industry or category leaders. HOW DID THE FORTUNE 500 FARE AGAINST THE MOST VISIBLE WEBSITES RETURNED FOR AUTOMOTIVE KEYWORD SEARCHES? In brief: not very well. None of the 36 Fortune 500 automotive companies were ranked among the top 36 natural search ranked websites for the automotive keyword set and only three Fortune 500 owned brands appeared in the top 100 web sites. The top 100 naturally ranking websites consisted of 11 general information sites such as Wikipedia and eHow, seven government sites, and seven auto loan and insurance companies. Sixty-nine percent of the top 100 were information and aggregation companies, only six belonged to auto manufacturers, underscoring the importance of relevant content, and lots of it, when building and optimizing a website. An appendix with a full list of both keywords and URLs is available upon request.© COPYRIGHT 2007. ICROSSING, INC. | WWW.ICROSSING.COM ATLANTA | CHICAGO | DALLAS | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SCOTTSDALE 1.866.620.3780 7
    • SEARCH 500 INDEX: AUTOMOTIVE JANUARY 2007 KEYWORD ANALYSIS REPORT: AUTO INDUSTRY Search 500 Search 500 Automotive TOTAL GOOGLE* YAHOO! AOL** MSN ASK.COM Automotive Ranking Company RANKINGS 1 en.wikipedia.org 268 57 59 56 49 47 2 www.edmunds.com 259 67 65 63 31 33 3 www.cars.com 160 37 56 35 21 11 4 www.kbb.com 131 25 26 24 25 31 5 www.autobytel.com 127 31 34 27 14 21 6 www.carsdirect.com 119 36 31 33 8 11 7 www.autoweb.com 110 27 21 27 12 23 8 www.automotive.com 110 41 - 39 15 15 9 autos.yahoo.com 109 22 44 20 17 6 10 www.autotrader.com 101 23 13 24 16 25 11 answers.yahoo.com 99 3 94 2 - - 12 autos.aol.com 87 6 2 75 4 - 13 www.car.com 86 10 33 10 32 1 14 www.carbuyingtips.com 81 25 5 23 8 20 15 autos.msn.com 79 16 11 15 34 3 16 www.amazon.com 75 24 19 23 3 6 17 www.motortrend.com 73 22 11 17 11 12 18 www.nadaguides.com 69 21 10 20 1 17 19 auto.howstuffworks.com 64 15 13 15 17 4 20 www.autoworld.com 63 20 1 20 14 8 21 www.eloan.com 62 16 24 16 2 4 22 www.carsmart.com 61 9 22 10 12 8 23 www.bankrate.com 58 13 17 13 7 8 24 www.autotrader.co.uk 57 17 5 14 7 14 25 www.autosite.com 52 16 11 15 3 7 26 www.jcwhitney.com 50 9 28 9 - 4 27 www.youtube.com 48 12 - 9 6 21 28 www.ehow.com 47 9 14 9 10 5 29 www.fueleconomy.gov 45 10 10 10 6 9 30 www.internetautoguide.com 45 19 1 17 8 - 31 www.ftc.gov 40 12 8 11 1 8 32 automobiles.honda.com 40 6 23 6 5 - 33 www.lendingtree.com 39 8 17 8 4 2 34 www.autoextra.com 39 2 21 3 13 - 35 www.bizrate.com 38 12 13 12 1 - 36 www.newcars.com 37 1 32 1 2 1 Executed on December 29, 2006. Results represent first, second and third page rankings for 116 keywords * Results provided by third party engine ** Contains results from Google© COPYRIGHT 2007. ICROSSING, INC. | WWW.ICROSSING.COM ATLANTA | CHICAGO | DALLAS | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SCOTTSDALE 1.866.620.3780 8
    • SEARCH 500 INDEX: AUTOMOTIVE JANUARY 2007 Of the six non-service or information automotive brands that figured among the top 100, Honda (automobiles.honda.com) ranked 33rd, Chevrolet (www.chevrolet.com) ranked 89th, Hyundai (www.hyundaiusa.com) ranked 90th, Chrysler (www.chrysler.com) ranked 92nd, Dodge (www.dodge.com) ranked 95th and Saab (www.saabusa.com) ranked 98th. The best-performing Fortune 500 automotive brands (including subsidiary brands) did not perform well among this broader keyword-based competitive landscape, with only three brands making it into the top 100. Chevrolet, owned by GM (www.chevrolet.com), ranked 89th; Saab, owned by GM (www.saabusa.com), ranked 98th; CarMax (www.carmax.com) ranked 100th; AutoNation (www.autonation.com) ranked 108th; Pontiac, owned by GM (www.pontiac.com), ranked 109th; General Motors (www.gm.com) ranked 163rd; and Ford (www.fordvehicles.com) ranked 167th. As noted earlier, four of these brands belong to GM, which contributed to its top ranking in terms of natural search visibility among Fortune 500 automotive companies. With the exception of Wikipedia, all of the top 10 websites were auto-related information and aggregation companies. It may be surprising that Wikipedia, a general information website, achieved the top natural search position for this keyword set. However, Wikipedia has also appeared at the top of natural search visibility lists for several other industries, prompting questions about what drives the site’s popularity across so many product categories. On a similar note, YouTube (ranked 27th) beat most of the automotive websites. This indicates the power of broad informational sites (in multiple mediums) as they dominate many content areas. The Wikipedia and YouTube findings support the idea that consumers are searching for information, and if an automotive website lacks the relevant desired content, consumers will find and gravitate to another company and its resources. Along the same informational lines, social bookmarking – aka “social tagging” – is making huge strides in the online marketplace. Social bookmarking is the act of saving bookmarks to an online service and “tagging” them with user-generated keywords to help other users find bookmarked items that have been determined interesting and/or important. Examples of social bookmarking sites include del.icio.us (www. delicious.com) and Digg (www.digg.com). Being included on one or many of these consumer- generated sites can have a beneficial impact on natural search optimization efforts. In addition, among the top 36 automotive natural search companies/websites (please see the Keyword Analysis Report on the previous page) four of them can be found elsewhere in the Fortune 500. They are autos.yahoo.com (ranked 9th), which belongs to Yahoo! (ranked 412th in the overall Fortune 500); autos.msn.com (ranked 15th), which is part of Microsoft (ranked 48th in the overall Fortune 500); www.amazon.com (ranked 16th), which is ranked 272nd in the overall Fortune 500; and YouTube (www.youtube.com; ranked 27th), which is part of Google (ranked 353rd in the overall Fortune 500). These results demonstrate the growing degree to which major online companies can achieve visibility across multiple categories, indicating the potential for future growth in new directions. It is very surprising that none of the major car brands nor any of the Fortune 500 automotive companies even appear in this top 36 list, but breaking into the top ranks is a goal all these companies should strive to achieve.© COPYRIGHT 2007. ICROSSING, INC. | WWW.ICROSSING.COM ATLANTA | CHICAGO | DALLAS | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SCOTTSDALE 1.866.620.3780 9
    • SEARCH 500 INDEX: AUTOMOTIVE JANUARY 2007METHODOLOGY The methodology employed in the Search 500 Index: Automotive 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 automotive companies, compare Fortune 500 automotive 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 US search engines: Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Ask, and AOL. Following a rigid methodology, the Search 500 Index: Automotive has shown natural search visibility and rankings for both Fortune 500 and other websites within the automotive category. The goal of this report was to demonstrate the natural search visibility for key revenue-driving companies in the automotive 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 automotive companies iCrossing generated a list of automotive 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 automotive 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 automotive industry For the automotive industry, we generated a set of 116 keywords based on comprehensive keyword research. The majority of the keywords are consumer oriented. They are also non-branded terms. The main purpose here was to ensure that the results of the analyses displayed as little bias as possible. Since the nature of online search tends to be more b-to-c than b-to-b, we anticipated that b-to-b companies would not have as much extensive natural search visibility as b-to-c companies do. The keyword lists 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 would like to solicit feedback to iteratively improve the analysis. In addition, iCrossing would be happy to provide quotes 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 through third 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 automotive 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 automotive 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.© COPYRIGHT 2007. ICROSSING, INC. | WWW.ICROSSING.COM ATLANTA | CHICAGO | DALLAS | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SCOTTSDALE 1.866.620.3780 10
    • SEARCH 500 INDEX: AUTOMOTIVE JANUARY 2007 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 identifi cation 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 automotive 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: Automotive report was written and refined based on the analyses and results contained herein. METHODOLOGY FLOWCHART DEFINE KEYWORD ANALYSIS POSITION ANALYSIS IDENTIFY REPORTS REPORTS 1. Identify Fortune 500 automotive 2. Identify non-branded keywords 3. Create Keyword Analysis Report 4. Create Position Analysis Report companies. pertaining to the automotive (KAR) based on identified keywords (PAR) to find out the online positions industry. 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 automotive industry. SCORECARD ANALYZE REPORT© COPYRIGHT 2007. ICROSSING, INC. | WWW.ICROSSING.COM ATLANTA | CHICAGO | DALLAS | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SCOTTSDALE 1.866.620.3780 11
    • SEARCH 500 INDEX: AUTOMOTIVE JANUARY 2007MEDIA AND CONTENT CONTENT USAGEINQUIRIES 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: Automotive. 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 automotive and other industries. DISCLAIMER iCrossing works in some capacity with the following company mentioned in this report: General Motors. This relationship in no way influenced the research methodology or the report findings. ABOUT ICROSSING iCrossing is a different kind of digital marketing agency committed to people’s desire to find. The company develops online campaigns, programs and experiences designed to help people find what they are searching for. Through a proven combination of talent and technology, iCrossing helps its global client base – including The Coca-Cola Company and 32 Fortune 500 companies – find solutions for complex digital marketing challenges. Founded in 1998, the company is headquartered in Scottsdale with offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, New York and San Francisco. iCrossing was named the 2005 Agency of the Year: Best Search and one of the Top 25 Interactive Agencies by OMMA: The Magazine of Online Media, Marketing & Advertising. iCrossing was also ranked no. 2 of the Top 20 search marketing agencies by Advertising Age. Find out more at www.icrossing.com.© COPYRIGHT 2007. ICROSSING, INC. | WWW.ICROSSING.COM ATLANTA | CHICAGO | DALLAS | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SCOTTSDALE 1.866.620.3780 12
    • SEARCH 500 INDEX: AUTOMOTIVE JANUARY 2007GLOSSARY OF TERMS SEARCH 500 INDEX: AUTOMOTIVE iCrossing has titled this report the Search 500 Index: Automotive. 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-oriented, 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 AUTOMOTIVE There were 36 automotive 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 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.© COPYRIGHT 2007. ICROSSING, INC. | WWW.ICROSSING.COM ATLANTA | CHICAGO | DALLAS | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SCOTTSDALE 1.866.620.3780 13