Social Media Wiki

How Google and Bing Plan to Eliminate the Need for WebMD (and Your Website)

Those of you who are regular readers know that I’m a big believer in search optimization. In most cases, it’s the single most powerful way to expose the right people to your brand at the right time. The importance of search as it relates to our digital lives is pretty significant. Consider this:  80% of all online sessions begin with search. Google has a 63.7% share of all searches. The point? Most people find things online by sitting down and using a search engine. It’s the first thing that happens 80% of the time. Two thirds of the time, these people are using Google. That means that just over 50% of the time when someone starts an online session, they open to Google and search.

In other words, if your site isn’t showing up on Google search, it may as well not exist. Moreover, it had better appear pretty high up in the results. How’s pharma doing? Just check out this post for the answer, which you might not like: “Pharma Search Engine Rankings Need Fixing.” The title probably says it all.

In any event, I’m going to add another wrinkle to help show you the impact that search engines have on your brands and how this impact is only going to increase. The result of this poor performance in search optimization is that people are finding alternatives for content. That is, they are looking elsewhere to find information about the conditions your products treat and even the products themselves. Sites like WebMD have become the “go to” sources for health information for many Americans. Wikipedia shows up on the first page of search results for nearly every condition and treatment you can imagine. So, you’re losing people to these sites and many others (each with varying degrees of credibility).

Well, just when you thought you knew the competition, it gets worse.

Now it’s possible for people to get a lot of the information they need without ever even leaving the search engine. That creates a problem for not just pharma and healthcare companies, but also sites like WebMD and Everyday Health. How can you compete with the immediacy and credibility of the content that shows up instantly from the search engine itself?

What am I talking about?

Last August, Search Engine Land reported that Google was adding Google Health data directly into the results of health-related searches. The result is the Google One Box for health. When you search for a condition like “diabetes,” this is what you see in Google (check out the area in the red box).

Google One Box Diabetes

Never noticed that before? What’s more interesting is what you get from clicking through the links. Click on “Google Health” and you get information directly from their vast library of highly credible content. There’s no reason to look elsewhere or blindly click on search results hoping you find what you need. It’s all right there.

Where does Google’s content come from? It comes from the National Library of Medicine, which is part of the United States National Institute of Health (aka: the NIH). Tough to beat out the NIH for credibility. When I head to the diabetes section (on Google Health), I get a bunch of information including basic disease state information, the latest news (pulled from Google News), scholarly articles (from Google Scholar), and I also get to see related searches, which is something no one but the search engines can deliver.

Google Health Related Searches

This is an answer to the question people often have: “Am I searching for the right thing?” Of note, Google is able to compile condition symptoms simply by the analysis of searches people perform. No medical textbooks required. Neat trick.

Not to be outdone by Google, Bing is getting in on the act and trying to back up its claim that it’s a “decision engine.” A couple of weeks ago, they introduced their version of Google’s One Box and it’s even more powerful than Google’s version. When you search for “diabetes” on Bing, this is what you get (check out the area in the red box):

You’ll notice there are a few more choices within the Bing results. Here’s where it gets interesting.

Check out the third column in the box called “Medical Centers.” This is a list of places where Bing thinks you can get excellent diabetes care. Let’s pick Massachusetts General Hospital.

Bing Hospital Ratings

You’ll notice that (in the red box), you get patient ratings for Mass General. The ratings come from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Another pretty reliable source.

Going back to the diabetes search, you also notice a handful of “related medications” are listed as well. Let’s click on Glucophage.

Bing Health Search Glucophage

Right there is a list of questions that people typically ask about their drugs. The answers come from Gold Standard, which is a part of Elsevier, the company best known as a publisher of medical journals. Here’s the answer people get to the question: “What is this medication?”

Bing Glucophage Info

Like I said, no reason to leave the search engine. All of the basic information one would need is right there. So, why would I go to WebMD for more information? More importantly, why would I go to a pharma company’s brand site for more information? With credible information sources immediately available, with a minimal number of clicks, with about the right amount of depth for most people, where do these other sites fit in?

For pharma and healthcare companies, you have reason to worry. I think we can all agree that brand websites aren’t the favorite destination for patients. Now, with the convenience of these search tools, brand sites could potentially become even more obsolete. So, what are you to do?

Here are a few immediate actions:

  • Make sure the information about your products is accurate and up to date. While these are quality sources, they aren’t infallible, so double-check. When there is an error, work directly with the sources (or enlist the help of Google or Bing if you can) to get the information fixed. Repeat for your competitors.
  • Do some research to figure out where the content and data comes from that might impact your brand. If you know this, then you can make sure that future updates are more reflective of the full body of information about your product.
  • Make your website better. This is a tough one, but if your site has the same depth of content as these search engine resources, seriously ask yourself, “what am I really adding to the situation?” If you offer nothing above what’s available here, then the answer is nothing. This also means that there’s no reason for people to come to your site for more information. Make your content deeper than what’s available from the search engines.  Don’t be afraid to license that content either…they did.
  • Continue to optimize your websites. While many people will use the search engine provided information, many others will continue to look through the organic search results. You’ve got to be there.
  • Don’t forget about paid search. If you want to appear on the same “shelf” (think: grocery store shopping) as these search engine boxes, then the only way you can do it is with paid search. Direct people to quality content via paid ads and be sure to exceed what they can get from the search engine information.

The importance of search engines will only continue to increase. Because of this, you have to pay very close attention to everything that they do and be prepared to react quickly when they make changes. In many ways, search engines will determine whether or not people see your websites. If they determine that your sites aren’t valuable enough (via search rankings), then you may as well throw in the towel. Sure, keep your current site for anyone who types  “yourbrand.com” into their browser, but know that they’ve probably already gotten everything they need somewhere else. That is, unless you do something more.

[Thanks to my colleague @nicocoetzee for the heads up on the Bing changes.]

Subscribe to the Dose of Digital RSS Feed


Join
Dose of Digital on Facebook for exclusive content and sneak previews.



Ready to hire the folks behind Dose of Digital? Contact us.

Possibly related posts (auto-generated):

  1. 8 Tips to Help You Own YouTube’s Search Results
  2. Why Cataloging and Calculations Should Be King
  3. Pharma Search Engine Rankings Need Fixing


Print This Post Print This Post

  • http://www.pewinternet.org Susannah Fox

    Great examples, Jon. You might also be interested in the debate happening over on e-patients.net:

    Health Sites: Some Are More Equal Than Others
    http://bit.ly/4xTLZZ

  • http://survivethejourney.blogspot.com Robin

    The “one box” with Google doesn’t work for Cushing’s Disease/Syndrome or any variation of those. It did work for “pituitary tumor”, however. It looks like one has to be very specific, and there are only certain health-related issues (most popular searches??) that are contained this way.

    The same searches with bing gave me wikipedia for the first, and Mayo Clinic for the second. Interesting.

    Great info, and thank you for sharing!

  • http://www.getbetterhealth.com Dr. Val

    I think Google and Bing are afraid of being replaced by Twitter. I’m kidding, kinda – People are using peers to filter information more than ever before. I used to use my own brain to drive questions and seek answers with Google. Now I watch other people talking and follow threads to keep up with their ideas. There’s a kind of laziness about Social Media that scares me. But pharma doesn’t just need SEO, they need people over platforms… As we all do to stay relevant. Case in point: I’m not here because of Google, but because of Twitter.
    .-= Dr. Val´s last blog ..Mythbusters For Moms: Dr. Rahul Parikh (Salon.com) And Dr. Val Discuss Top Pediatric Misconceptions =-.

  • http://www.doseofdigital.com Jonathan Richman

    @susannah. Thanks for sharing the link. A lot of the same info obviously. Sorry I missed it the first time around, as it would have been helpful. I wonder if this helps or hurts the fact that many people never check the sources of the sites they visit.

    @robin. I’ve noticed that not every health condition has the One Box result. I’m also not sure how the determination of which conditions to include and which to exclude are made. Is it only “major” or “common” dieases?

    @Dr. Val. Yes, social media certainly makes it more concerning when it comes to the sources people trust. If a friend recommends a site are people to trust the info even more? Since most people don’t check the sources of information on health sites this can be a pretty dangerous trend. I’m thinking that more people will still find healthcare information via search than social media (for now), so the info might be credible based on the sources that Google and Bing are using.

    Thanks for the comments, all.

  • http://twitter.com/thewritedude The Write Dude

    This is an interesting post(and sort of alarming from a webmaster perspective). I am wondering if something can, or even should, be done about it to preserve the diversity of the internet. Or, should the free market reign supreme?

    A long list of retweets in comments is unhelpful, monotonous, and uninformative.

  • http://www.doseofdigital.com Jonathan Richman

    @the_write_dude: I think that webmasters have to look at the content that is provided by the search engines and go much deeper than this. If you’re offering the same level of content as what’s available from one of the search engines, then there’s no reason for people to come to your site. The search engines have no interest in providing detailed content on every topic in the world (healthcare or otherwise), so it’s still up to webmasters to provide this. However, many don’t do this and those will be the sites that no one will have any need to visit.

    Fair comment on the RTs. I’ve tried to divide them from the on-site comments (like this one). I’ll try to see about a more efficient way of presenting them. Appreciate the feedback.

  • http://www.twitter.com/healtheddigital Jeff Greene

    Jon as always an insightful post. A few things to add to your bubbling pot:

    - Google Caffeine will likely change the game again, supposedly by creating the ability to better cross-index sites with their social media footprint

    Brief update here: http://mashable.com/2009/11/10/google-caffeine-soon/

    - Many (most?) of the high-credibility health sites come with the baggage that their content is created by clinical folks. Ever read an NIH abstract? Or a Wikipedia health article? Health literacy is in short supply among health sites with high search rankings. Meaning the information is not actionable for ~50% of patients without a college degree. And then some.

    Jeff Greene
    HealthEd

  • http://survivethejourney.blogspot.com Robin

    I really don’t want to come across as an argumentative patient. But I think you sell patients short. I get “real” articles/research, not just abstracts and decipher them. They actually tend to be better to read than the abstracts. (Yes, I have a college degree and then some…) I share what I learn. The fact is, most non-college grads still learn to do a whole lot of technical “stuff” in their lives by either learning it or finding someone to help them. What makes health information any different? With sites like ACOR for cancer patients and cushings-help.com for Cushing’s patients, we CAN all learn and help each other.

    I have a quote from a mom who had a daughter with Cushing’s. Her daughter suffered for years and was ignored, mistreated, or treated piecemeal. Until her mother found the cushings-help.com support boards, she didn’t have the information on testing and diagnosis. Shoot, she didn’t even realize what her daughter had wrong. But she did learn, quickly. She taught doctors, found knowledgeable doctors, and never looked back. Her daughter is now cured, with quality of life she’s never had and hope for an even better one. Here is the quote:

    “Until this all began I was a hairstylist/soccer mom with a high school education. It’s been a learning curve. I am done with doctors who speak to me as if they know all; I know better now.”
    .-= Robin´s last blog ..Two easy ways to blog without (almost) any technical skills! =-.

  • http://www.doseofdigital.com Jonathan Richman

    @Robin I’m assuming your comment is a direct response to @Jeff’s. I’m in the middle here. I agree with Jeff that a lot of material isn’t approachable for your “average” patient. At the same time, I agree with you that many patients can handle the same level of data as a physician. The trick is in figuring out who the “average” person is. In general, I don’t believe that most people want the same level of detail and complexity as a physician. In cases of more complex disease (especially in their latter stages), patients, as you note, can be as informed as any physician.

    @Jeff In regards to the content supplied by Google, for example, the content is actually very accessible and readable despite the fact that it is ultimately sourced from the NIH. Check out a few of the results (try diabetes as a start) and the content you get from Google Health (sourced from NLM, part of NIH) and you’ll see that it’s pretty user friendly and I’d better a fairly low grade level.

    This is where pharma and healthcare companies can come in and add value. If their content is at this same level, then there’s no reason for a person to leave the search engine. However, if a patient or caregiver wants more in-depth information or more “clinical” information, then they need to go somewhere else. Perhaps that’s a good spot for the industry to play…cater to those who want more complex information that would be difficult for search engines to create and keep up to date for millions of conditions and treatments.

  • http://www.twitter.com/healtheddigital Jeff Greene

    Robin thanks for sharing — it's a great story. If more patients were like the mom you mention, there would be less of a concern. My point was to show that many (not all) health websites, from both pharma and non-pharma sources, speak to patients from a physician's lens. My personal belief is it's actually these sites that sell patients short, by not spending the time/resources to speak on a consumer's terms. Providing lots of content is fine. It's the clarity of that content which is my concern. In our research we constantly see patients who cannot act on information they find online, because they don't understand it. While that may not include people like the mom in your example, it does include a wide swath of patients. I agree with Jon that healthcare companies have the means and the rationale to make it easier for patients to navigate the information landscape online. I think it should be one of their priorities!

    Jeff Greene
    HealthEd

  • http://www.twitter.com/healtheddigital Jeff Greene

    Robin thanks for sharing — it's a great story. If more patients were like the mom you mention, there would be less of a concern. My point was to show that many (not all) health websites, from both pharma and non-pharma sources, speak to patients from a physician's lens. My personal belief is it's actually these sites that sell patients short, by not spending the time/resources to speak on a consumer's terms. Providing lots of content is fine. It's the clarity of that content which is my concern. In our research we constantly see patients who cannot act on information they find online, because they don't understand it. While that may not include people like the mom in your example, it does include a wide swath of patients. I agree with Jon that healthcare companies have the means and the rationale to make it easier for patients to navigate the information landscape online. I think it should be one of their priorities!

    Jeff Greene
    HealthEd

  • http://www.doseofdigital.com Jonathan Richman

    Of course, the third alternative is creating content that can be customized by the user. If they want the basics, they can get that. If they want more complex, in-depth information, then that’s available as well. There’s no reason to pick just one or the other if you make it possible for people to select which is appropriate for their situation.

  • http://www.paweljurczynski.pl/2010/06/13/google-poszerza-wplywy/ Google poszerza wpływy | Paweł Jurczyński Blog

    [...] tak dawno na blogu Dose of Digital pokazał się wpis na temat tego jak zachowuje się Google na podstawowe terminy medyczne dając [...]

  • http://www.flashfree.wordpress.com Liz Scherer

    Really nice post Jon! But I think that you are missing one point – we’re starting to see more and more aggregators and content curators pop up. I think that a good, no great, aggregator will give both Google Search and Bing and others a run for their money. Will they eliminate Google search? No. But like WebMd, which has been trusted for over two decades now (I continue to contribute to their content), I think that some of these content curated sites will become THE sources for all that is health content. So then, consumers need only to go to the sites and bypass the search engine altogether. Make sense? Time will tell.