SEO snapshot: March Madness in focus

With March Madness having come to a thrilling finish, brands would have tested if the exciting, simple single-elimination event would have brought new bettors into their orbit.

The downside of similar events, historically, has been an imbalance between the paid media/advertising outlay used to capture the attention of low-value bettors who don’t stick around after the tournament is over. Combined with the current (March to May) rollout of fairly major Google algorithm updates, and you can see why brands might be a tad cautious with a major digital push. Whether there’s more sober conservatism around player acquisition that might be limiting efforts, or it’s a case that non-gambling sites are genuinely ‘better,’ it does seem like the big winners this year aren’t betting companies outside of the most dominant brands.

Google’s helpful content updates

While SportingNews.com has highly readable long-form content, a brand heritage stretching back to 1886 (according to its byline), and a highly impressive top-five ranking position, this example also may give SEO professionals a moment for concern. While the site’s US traffic is seemingly over six million, this is down from 20 million two years prior, and, if a well-written site like this with real writers is on a downward path in spite of some March Madness wins, there’s a question about what Google is truly looking for in 2024.

I draw out this example as many of the other sites ranking for March Madness betting queries are well understood to be genuine market leaders that have invested heavily in the fantasy side for years before regulated real-money betting. Similarly, ESPN, USA Today, Wikipedia, and others fulfil the ‘brand’ criteria that Google seems to increasingly reward.

Across 2023 and into 2024, we’ve seen multiple broad core Google updates and non-stop emphasis from Google about the importance of ‘quality’ in content. In March 2024, Google even posted a blog about its current efforts to address low-quality content and the debatable definition of spam content.

This emphasis for March through to May 2024 (at least) is on, in Google’s words: “Improved quality ranking: We’re making algorithmic enhancements to our core ranking systems to ensure we surface the most helpful information on the web and reduce unoriginal content in search results.

“New and improved spam policies: We’re updating our spam policies to keep the lowest-quality content out of search.”

Even in early March 2024, X, formerly Twitter, was awash with site owners and affiliates that have been hit hard, in spite of feeling that they’d lived up to the standard of ‘helpful content’ set, but without the status of a household-name brand. 

Based on the March Madness betting query search engine results pages (SERPs), I’m quite surprised there haven’t been more examples of smaller, fan-first sites rankings. This should be food for thought for affiliates (or challenger brand operators) that are evaluating their content strategies.

It’s worth noting that the SERP example above is a snapshot only and, with fast-moving tournaments like March Madness where news and progression changes rapidly, this doesn’t mean there haven’t been sites that are capitalizing for shorter periods or for more specific queries, but, I do think the snapshot is something that we all need to mull over.

Content compared – operators

For some operators, it didn’t seem like they were fighting for March Madness rankings at all. Aside from one piece of article content in February with negligible traffic, bet365 seems happy enough to offer odds on the tournament while using a familiar bracket challenge as a player magnet.

In contrast, BetMGM actively pursued organic traffic and rankings with an in-depth, regularly updated content hub. It’s stylish, easy to navigate, and shows plenty of the signals that Google likes – experience, expertise, authority, and trust – with named authors, reliable stats, accurate info, and a fast/secure site. However, based on the third-party tools we have access to, this content hub does not appear to be driving much traffic – only double-digit visitor numbers from the USA.

Such tools have their limitations, particularly around fast-moving events, but it does appear that most rankings this page has is based on ‘branded’ search, ie, people searching for ‘mgm.’

If a major brand like BetMGM can’t compete effectively for non-brand rankings easily during a seasonal event like March Madness, with content of this depth and quality, it again makes us question how Google is making its assessments, and that’s particularly the case at this precise moment with major algorithm updates rolling out. That said, this example and others like it doesn’t mean there are no opportunities; there may be other factors at play from on-site aspects such as site indexability and crawlability, or off-site factors due to the comparatively lean backlink profile… but it’s clear rankings are hard-earned at the moment.

Any brand looking to capitalize on the US market and major seasonal events needs to bear that in mind and anticipate a serious approach to SEO where they can take on the attributes of a truly powerful brand and sit among the current market leaders and media powerhouses.

But what do those powerhouses produce for their content?

SEO leaders compared

Perhaps the current SERPs give some useful reminders that Google’s goal is to provide users with answers and access to the content as speedily as possible. With that in mind, it’s perhaps not surprising that the page that ranks most for FanDuel is not an in-depth content hub but their their odds. They do have some ‘long-form content’ but it scarcely competes with the odds page, and the layout is not what anyone would call customer-friendly, with the main proposition being a full page-width new customer offer.

So, what are we to make of this as content and SEO professionals?

While the written content on FanDuel’s page is fine in itself, it’s hard to say that this user experience is as good as that of a traditional media company, fan site, or even some of the other betting operators mentioned above.

However, it does appear to be functional, and the brand equity built up by the operator is so enormous that it probably is a safe bet that if someone was to click on a FanDuel result for even a general March Madness betting query, they probably do want to go straight to the sportsbook. Or, at the very least, they trust the brand enough not to be immediately put off.

Once again, this could indicate there’s a mountain to climb for brands without this level of blanket familiarity and brand equity – they may not be able to compete based on content of this nature or seasonal events more generally without a much longer ‘run up’ – which, given the expense of paid ads these days, may still be the best possible play.

So, how about the number one, at the time of writing, ranked site, DraftKings? It’s a similar story to FanDuel, with the odds section coming up top followed by the bracket section.

Once again it seems like the power of brand and Google ‘thinking like a user’ – ie a newbie bettor who wants to place a bet on a ‘safe’ site – has had an impact.

There is also some reasonable content, displayed fairly poorly as a ‘wall of text’ that is something less-well-known sites would be harmed by, but we also need to be fair and recognize that the speed, UX, and comprehensive options for betting (as shown in the easy-to-skim-through tabs in the top half of the page) probably does make this page a candidate for ‘helpful content’.

Think like a user

It’s obviously not possible to go back 10 years and spend VC investment to build up a fantasy sports customer base while getting shoutouts on every podcast under the sun. So, are DraftKings and FanDuel immovable?

While both brands are doing well for this event, it is a time when newer bettors will reach for what they know, and Google is happy to serve that to them. We can’t ignore the type of in-depth content affiliates have put in to earn their rankings, nor the presence across the betting landscape of legacy media operators that, either in their own right or in partnership with other operators, are earning and converting traffic.

The main takeaway is to consider how ideas about the ‘best’ content must evolve in line with what users are looking for and trust. That might require taking braver, bolder choices while also building the brand equity that Google loves. In that sense, the battle to rank content is not just about words on a page but how that content is surfaced, the credibility of the brand serving it, and looking beyond the written word to build superiority through off-site SEO, PR, and technical performance.