Should marketers invest resources in search engines other than Google?

They are worth evaluating, but investing broadly just for the sake of diversification is not advisable. Whether to allocate resources should depend on which engines people in the target industry and region use, whether existing optimization work can be reused, and whether the additional investment delivers an acceptable return. The supplied material supports considering other search engines, but it is insufficient to establish a universally applicable budget allocation or prove that smaller platforms necessarily offer better value.

Identify your target audience first, rather than looking only at global rankings

Neil Patel’s 2016 article argues that businesses should consider other search engines’ market shares in their target industry before deciding whether to optimize for them. The key question is not how many platforms exist beyond Google, but whether those platforms can reach the people the business wants to find.

In the 2016 U.S. desktop search data cited in the article, Google accounted for 63.8%, while Bing exceeded 20% for the first time. This shows that other engines also had substantial user bases at the time, but it cannot serve as a basis for allocating resources today, globally, or for mobile search.

• When targeting a particular industry, first consider which search engines people in that industry use.
• When serving a particular country, do not simply apply global market shares.
• When relevant data is unavailable, list an engine as a potential channel without immediately expanding investment.

Distinguish reusable SEO work from additional costs

Investing across search engines does not necessarily mean starting from scratch. The 2016 article mentioned above states that most Google optimization work also helps other search engines understand content and site structure, though some tasks still require separate attention. This was a generalization made in the article at the time, not a guarantee that all engines have identical technical requirements today.

On that basis, resource allocation can first distinguish between two categories: content and site structure improvements that were already needed, and additional work for a particular platform. The former may benefit multiple engines, while the latter needs to be evaluated separately. Having already done Google SEO does not mean other platforms will require no additional spending.

The article also notes that building authority with search engines takes time. So even when considering organic search, “not paying per click” should not be taken to mean that no staff time or waiting is required.

The case for small-scale testing, and the objection of insufficient returns

An article recounted on WarriorForum recommends testing options such as Brave and Ecosia, arguing that if marketers consistently reject low-traffic platforms, those platforms may find it harder to secure the resources needed to grow. This is an argument for diversification, not evidence that adopting these platforms will necessarily improve them or generate profits.

In the same discussion, DABK objects to asking marketers to take on this responsibility, reporting that at the time, he recovered at most $0.80 for every $1 spent. He argues that engines should first improve search quality and attract users before marketing investment makes sense. These figures are a personal account, not a basis for estimating other businesses’ returns.

The disagreement between these positions concerns whether to set aside resources to explore channels that are not yet mature. If taking a testing approach, exploration should be kept separate from scaling up investment. Supporting competition in the search market cannot replace a business’s assessment of its own returns.