The page that was normally well ranked for most MP3 related terms is: www.apple.com/itunes. However just about any of the sub pages from this section including www.apple.com/ipod/ipod.html would potentially make good pages to attempt to rank for MP3 related terms.

When you look at the source code for their iTunes page or just check the cached text in Google, MSN, Yahoo, etc. you find that they do not use the keywords "MP3" or "player" any where on this page. Even thought they have used that term in the past.

On the other hand, Apple's pages still rank well in Yahoo and MSN as these engines still place a high relevance rating on inbound links. But even in these engines, the textual content can make a difference. (Ask.com, appears to be taking a route more akin to Google.) Should this concern Apple? It should. According to a quick search of the Wordtracker.com service, Google has about 47% of all search engine traffic. I've seen other estimates that say Google is 60-80% of all search traffic.

I thought links were all we need for Google rankings?

If you still think that links alone can support your site in Google, consider the following Google rankings for the keyword phrase MP3 player:

680,000+ inbound links from non Apple.com pages is nothing to scoff at. Even if you think that perhaps Google might be devaluing some of the potentially paid or off topic links that point to the iTunes page, take out even 200,000 links and you still have a linking juggernaut. Discount all of those links and a single link from their main page to the iTunes page could push a lot of Page Rank weight to the iTunes page. But... again, for the keyword phrases related to "MP3", Apple just doesn't use the term and so, they are essentially telling Google through their optimization or specific lack of optimization, 'we don't sell MP3 Players and we don't want to rank for them'.

There is a hole in your chart/theory! Or is there?

I know that some of you will say, "but Scott, look at number 8. Musicmatch.com doesn't even use the keyword!". That would be true, but Google considers "jukebox" to be a keyword that is similar to MP3. Really? Yep, that is semantic indexing at work. However the strength of this association is quite weak.

Here you see keywords in bold that have strong relationships to "jukebox" such as MP3 Player, MP3, and player.

Below you see keywords that have a strong relationship to "MP3". But you will notice that the term jukebox is not highlighted by Google in bold. Thus indicating that the relationship between the two keywords is not all that strong.

And some of you will say "Why do I see MP3 in some of my Yahoo searches for this Apple page?"

It is because they use Yahoo's paid Search Submit service. Essentially they have a bit more control over what text appears in the Yahoo search results, faster indexing and refreshes from Yahoo, and a few other perks. However it does not directly improve their rankings in Yahoo and does nothing for their rankings in Google.

Does Apple play MP3 files? Who cares. Should they use "MP3" on their web pages?

Speaking to some of my evangelical Mac friends, it is true that a Mac does not technically "play" MP3s. However they do convert MP3 based music files, CDs, etc. into a format called AAC that can be used on Mac's iPod hardware players. I know from personal experience that their iTunes software player either converts or plays MP3s as well. However whether it is converting them or playing them directly, to me, doesn't matter. I can play them. The average person is in a similar situation online. They are looking for an "MP3 player" in Google, not an "AAC player".

There may be some technical or licensing considerations preventing Apple from using the ubiquitous "MP3" term on their site. Maybe they are trying to subtly encourage new/non-techie iPod owners to only use the iTunes music store by remaining a bit silent on the word MP3 and the ability to convert MP3s to something usable by their players. On their iPod and iTunes promotional pages they always use more general terms like "music files", "music library", etc. rather than talking about song formats. Even their help pages don't really help you to understand if your existing MP3 library works with iPod or iTunes. I doubt that they simply forgot to use the term.

Lets go back to Wordtracker for a second. The keywords MP3 player and MP3 players are estimated to have 900 to 1600 searches in a 24 hour period. While I think this value is a bit low, what is potentially at stake? Lets combine the keywords and figure that 900 people could hit Apple.com in one day from a combined "MP3 player" and "MP3 players" search. Over the course of a month, that could mean 27,900 visitors to their site or roughly 328,500 visitors a year. What if 1% of those visitors ended up buying the average iPod at $199? That is an additional $55,521 a month in revenue or more than $600,000 over the course of the year. While this is all "in theory", remember that there are also various other MP3 related searches that they are missing out on as well.

Summary and Suggestions...

Apple.com probably should consider their rankings loss for MP3 player and similar terms. They have one of the most popular music players on the planet and it can use MP3 songs, convert them to AAC, or whatever needs to happen. As some one who thinks in terms of search engines though, their pages are -not- optimized for MP3 or MP3 related terms. And that side of me thinks that they have a great opportunity to re-gain their Google rankings. No, they don't have to go out of their way and start talking about "MP3" all over the place. It would be easy enough to just add a sentence or two at the bottom of their iTunes page where it reads:

"Cars available on iTunes in selected countries. © Disney and Pixar. No celebrity endorsement implied. iPod games will not play on Apple TV. All rights reserved. TM & Copyright © 2007 by Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved."

Perhaps just a quick sentence/phrase/slogan like "Your MP3 tunes work on iTunes and the iPod music player." Or add a short paragraph that talks about Steve Job's recent announcement on DRM free music. Do you have recording of his speech? Um, podcast anyone? Post a descriptive text link that points to a free AAC copy of the speech as well as an MP3 copy. This will provide another instance of "MP3" for your page. Certainly there is a creative, yet valid and logical way to squeeze MP3 onto your page in order to regain the MP3 related Google rankings.

For the rest of us, it will take more than just a few mentions of MP3 and a few links to rank on this term or others. There are literally hundreds of search engine factors to consider when optimizing a site to rank well. But when you are strictly focusing on the linking side of things, dealing with hundreds of thousands of legitimate links, a trusted domain, etc. many of those other factors can fade into the back ground. However whether you are a behemoth computer industry site or a mom and pop trying to rank on a few terms, some of the more fundamental SEO considerations are considerations that every site should keep in the forefront of the web and content design decisions.

                 ← What is this?

---