O'r begwedd ymlaen. Felly rwy'n gweld Johnathan Mickie, ysbryd yn llwyddoedd lleidio'r dynistodd. Felly rwy'n gweithio i mewn i. Felly ddwy'r gweithio'r gwahoddi, os ydych chi ddweud i'r ffaith o'r gwahoddi, iddo chi'n deallu'r gwahoddi, wrth gw'i sgwpio'r gwahoddi, sydd gwyddi'r gwahoddi, felly ddwy'r gwahoddi i'n cael ei ddatblygu'r gwahoddi. Mae'n fwy o'ch cyfnodd, mae'n rwyfynu, mae'n ddiweddau, yn gynhyrch, yn y llwyddiadau. Ond oherwydd, dwi'n rwy'n dechrau, oeddwn i'n ddigwyddio'n ddweud, wrth gwrs, mae'n ddweud o'i ddweud o'r rhomongol. Rwy'n rhoi'n gweithio'n ddweud drwy'n dweud. Ond oherwydd, o'i ddweud o'i ddweud, mae'n ddweud eich cyfnodd ffyrdd cyfnodd a'r 5th anfertyd o'r ffrindwyr sydd yn ymgyrch i'r cyflwydoedd Llemon. Mae'r ffrindwyr wedi'u gweld ar y rhaid o'r cyflwyno ar y rôl. Felly, y Unifredig, mae'n anhygoel ar gyfer o'r ddebyg. Felly, mae'n ddweud y ddebyg o'r ddebyg o'r ffrindwyr. Mae'n anhygoel ar gyfer o'r leiseyfair. ac mae'n mynd i'w ddysgu'n ddiwedd. Ond yn ystod o fewn ychydig yng Nghymru, fel y gwasanaeth y 2008 rhaid, os ydych yn ymddangos, a ddim yn ymddangos i'r llwyddau hynny, a'r ffordd o'r swyddfa sydd, o'r gwneud i ymddangos. Ond rwy'n cael ei gael yn ymdangos o'r ffordd y fisi. Firstly, can people indicate how many people here have ever done a course at the department here or any other part of the University? Most of you, but not all. So for those who don't know, I'll say something briefly welcoming to everyone to University of Oxford, then say something about the department and then introduce myself. So for those of you who don't know about the University of Oxford, it gets more research funding than any other University in Britain. In case you didn't know, it does have the leading department for continuing education in Britain and not a lot of people know that, but it's actually not surprising and it's related to the reason why this event is being held today in particular, which I hope you all realise, September 26th is 135 years to the day since the University of Oxford gave that first public extension lecture and commitment to continuing education, lifelong learning, has always been seen by the University of Oxford as a very important part of what they do, unlike a lot of other universities across Britain. And in fact, does anyone here know why the department for continuing education is based in Rudy House in particular, how long we've been here or how it came about? It was because, after the First World War, the government established a royal commission to look into the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the Asquith Commission, which sat for three years, 1919 to 1922 and concluded at the end of that that universities of Oxford and Cambridge should have departments for continuing education, and they should be as central as possible, central to the universities, central to the cities, which is why the university bought Rudy House five years later. I'm afraid it's always taken the university at least five years to get round to doing anything, but in 1927 they bought Rudy House in order to house its continuing education department, so we've been here ever since. The other lead, the second most impressive department for continuing education in Britain is actually in Cambridge, so I think that is no coincidence that came from that, that Oxford and Cambridge as the leading universities received by parliament and government as having the responsibility at duty to have well invested in departments for continuing education. Oxford University Press is also by far the most successful university press in the world. If the Vice Chancellor was here, he'd point out that it's more successful under just any measure than all the American university presses and Cambridge University Press put together. It's that successful. It's generally acknowledged that the two leading museum collections, university museum collections, have Harvard and Oxford, and I think it's generally acknowledged that Oxford is the leading collection globally of university museums, the Ashmoly and Natural History and so on, which I hope you all realise is all. Well, Ashmoly down at the bottom of this road, all free of charge. If you've not been there, you should definitely go and have a look. I should say about continuing education actually, the leading North American universities have the same tradition, so they almost all have very impressive continuing education operations. I'd say though that Oxford is certainly one of the top two in the world. I'd say the only university which could genuinely claim to have a better, more impressive department for continuing education is Harvard. Welcome to Oxford, which is a very good university state. Department for continuing education, we therefore, for those of you who see ourselves as an internationally recognised centre of excellence for lifelong learning, continuing education, both on professional programmes, explicit, so CPD professional training, through to programmes for people to educate themselves more on any subject which might interest them for their own pure personal intellectual interest. We work with organisations though, as well as putting on programmes for the public. We aim to put on programmes as flexibly as possible, both every evening for ten weeks, as well as intensively over a weekend in summer schools, and increasing actually on online programmes so that people, not only in Oxford, across Britain but around the world, can do these ten week courses virtually together in small groups and discuss the issues each week with their Oxford teacher and with each other. More than 15,000 students a year do one of those courses or other, which is actually far more than the rest of the university together recruits each year to all the other university programmes. I came to Oxford actually to Baydale College in 1976 to do Politics, Philosophy and Economics, and Oxford is a strange university in a number of ways, one of which is probably one of the only universities in the world where you can't do straight economics as an undergraduate. Traditionally you had to do it with politics and philosophy, politics so you'd understand the institutional environment of the economy and how economies develop and philosophy so that you'd know how to think. Now you can actually do it in business because the universities have changed a bit, but you still have to do it in combination. I was a college lecturer in economics then went into various policy jobs, ended up in Brussels, Expo was the job title, not my description of myself, but I should say I wasn't responsible for designing the euro, I did a variety of nice jobs there. The next bit I would have kept quiet until recently when I decided actually to become an academic, I went to Cambridge, I would have kept that quiet, but actually our Vice Chancellor of Oxford Professor Andrew Hamilton, he's actually the first time Oxford's ever appointed a Vice Chancellor who didn't have a previous Oxford connection and he actually did his PhD at Cambridge so we're now allowed to admit and play company that we've been to the other place. I was, and funnily enough, there's links to the fact about flexibility in the department here. When I'm explaining university department to foreign delegations, I tell them which is true that up until 1990 you weren't allowed to work during term time if you're an Oxford student and American delegations in particular are always, you know, a gas at that since they've always thought you worked through education and that's still true actually in Oxford for undergraduate students. But in 1990 was the first time that Oxford allowed you to carry on with your job and do a postgraduate degree at the same time and people particularly Americans sometimes say well that can't be right because you can't have a business school unless you've got an executive MBA which by definition allows executives to continue in their roles while they're doing their MBA. But of course the point is up until 1990 Oxford wouldn't allow a business school either and neither would Cambridge. It was only in the 1990s that both Oxford and Cambridge finally decided that management of business was a legitimate area of academic endeavour. So I became head of the Economics, Finance and Accounting Group of the Business School in Cambridge. Then actually came the Sainsbury Professor of Management in London, head of the School of Management at Birkbeck College in London which is very similar to continued education where people were working at the same time and then dean of the Business School at the University of Birmingham and then back here. So that's my background but I should explain and put into context what I'm going to argue about the economy and what's wrong and what's needed to put it right. One of the things which is needed is better teaching and appreciation of economics as it used to be taught in Oxford with an appreciation of the historic and institutional importance and so on. I think one of the problems is economics as a discipline became much too narrow and they started believing their own models and thinking that the world worked in that way and actually doing it quite aggressively until the whole thing collapsed, probably which they carried on in the same way actually. So actually the reason I went into management of business schools was because I was interested, well I didn't think that way of doing economics was right and in management of business schools people tend to have a greater appreciation of how the world actually works and things which go on in the real world. I'm actually delighted to come back to continued education in Oxford because here we're able to teach economics in exactly the way, I think it should be taught the way Oxford traditionally always has done. And actually this is my most recent book which does precisely that, looks at as deliberately say the political economy of the environment rather than just the economics of the environment because to create a sustainable economy and you have to think about institutions, legislation, regulation etc. not just economics and prices and taxation and so on. And this also actually signals what I'm going to conclude at the end that I think for the future we need a real shift in the economy. It's an epoch type shift which might sound radical but actually if you look at the history of the world economy over the past 100-200 years it has come in really sort of 30 eras really, different eras of the world economy. We're a very successful one after the Second World War sometimes referred to as the golden age of capitalism up until the 1970s when there were all sorts of economic problems and then now we've had a 30 year period of later fair economics driven by the sort of models I was talking about as being unrealistic which collapsed with the global credit crunch and we now need a new sort of 30 year year of sustainable growth, economic play, sustainable as well as environmental play. So five years since the collapse of the Lehman Brothers and generally taken as the financial crash already by 2007 you may remember there were some warning signals including in Britain the northern rock difficulties that the bank run on the northern rock where we had the queues all around the bank all night for people to take their money out. Something which we'd all been taught in the economics of the school had been solved originally because obviously when capitalism was developing and there was fast attempts to establish banks everyone was naturally suspicious about giving that money to this institution. Would the money be there if they went the next week to take it ice again so every time there was a ruwe that the banks in trouble, everyone would rush to get it ice and of course the bank would collapse. It was why they started having regulations for banks about how much money had to keep Ben and so on and those regulations were increasingly repealed under lobbying by the banks in the years, in a couple of decades leading up to the crash. 2008 was the crash where the debate I'll mention again in a minute was about laissez-faire economics which was then followed in 2009 by a global recession which technically was actually the world's first global recession since the 1930s. It was the first year since the 1930s whether the income or output of the entire globe shrank got smaller up until then during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, booms and slums had really been about a rate of growth rather than actual decline but also hadn't been spread globally in the same way. This was the debate we had on the current financial crisis as the death knell for laissez-faire capitalism and I was arguing in favour of that saying that it did sound that the death knell, not because I was naive enough to think that the people who have got the wealth and the power and who run the economy would admit to what they've been doing and the ways they've been making so much money were wrong and they would stop doing them and they would go back to have a sensible economic regulation and so on. But more twofold A that it signed the death knell and there had been a crash. There had caused a global recession. The banks had been failed out by the taxpayers and almost any measure certainly the myth and height of the financial sector and the economic profession about the sustainability of the boom up until 2008 that had been proved dramatically false so as a death knell in that sense but also because I thought and still do think that it should be the death knell because we want more appropriate and sustainable policies. The moderator is Colin Merger. The time is the dean of the business school here and Oxford side business school. He just written a very good book about the corporation where he lives more of the individual company and how historically companies were founded for a purpose not just to make money of financial gain for the owner but actually to build a railroad or sell food or whatever it was supposed to be trying to do and that had been lost and interesting. That's why the companies were given limited liability which meant we set up company and in the hope of making money and failed you didn't have to pay your debts in my tow which is quite a big gift to somebody who wants to embark on that endeavor but the reason company, the reason society's government did that which precisely because the companies, when they were asked permission to establish and receive limited liability said that what their purpose was whether it was to build a railroad or anything else. Anyway, and then that's me and then Linda Yu was on the other side of the debate but very good economist despite that. I go and say actually we did a lot of podcasts subsequently about the crash and so on and she actually wrote one of our most popular online courses in the department here on new economic powers on the rise of China, India and so on which remains one of, it's updated each year, it remains one of our most popular online courses. This was the debate. I'm pleased to say I won the debate in the vote on my vote, I think of all Oxford alumni, I think it was. So what did, of course, I would argue that it was that whole era, there was a 30-year era during the 1980s onwards which was an era of deregulation, privatisation, de-mutialisation, financialisation and greed is good from the Wall Street film, get the character who argued that greed is good it allows successful companies to take over on successful companies and everyone's better off for it and of course the bonus culture was used again today because the British government's trying to prevent any restriction, well the European restrictions on bonuses. I think that all led up to the credit crunch and interestingly some of this deregulation what was happening was that regulations were being scrapped where did those regulations come from? Some of the key ones, the most fundamental ones were introduced precisely because this laser fare had led to the Wall Street crash and the global depression and the Second World War so they thought, you know, no return of authorities, canes and others had across the world we must have a more rational system of economic governance and introduce all the Bretton Woods as they're called because that's the place in America talking and meeting Bretton Woods systems of fixed exchange rates, the World Bank, free time development, the International Monetary Fund, etc etc. So those regulations were increasingly weakened or even abandoned such as the idea that the speculative bank should be kept separate from I Street Bank so it was abandoned so they could all get it together and that all helped to lead up to the crunch. Epidemised, as I mentioned, Northern Rock, that's the wine so I'll hurry up, Northern Rock collapsing in Britain and Northern Rock, you probably know was a successful, neutral building society owned by its members until it was demutrized from a private bank then got involved in all the sorts of speculative activities that the private banks did, went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the British taxpayer and Goldman Sachs in Greece, you may remember although it was a few years ago and I was reported, they were caught out sort of betting against the Greek economy doing forward sales and purchases of Greek bonds so that if the Greek economy got into trouble they would make a lot of money and what was scandalous about that is they were basically betting on the economic failure what was scandalous about that is it was them who had been advising the Greek economy the Greek government on their economic policies and precisely how to present their accounts and so on so they were basically betting that Greece would fail because the books had been cooked and they knew because they had cooked the books so that was a particular scandalous property earring however there is one other point I'd like to make this whole era which is one of the arguments used continuing favour of joining the deregulation was that the world had become a global marketplace there was nothing individual governments could do anymore to scrap the national regulations and join in as best you can and of course in all sorts of ways the world is more global I just mentioned our 10 week courses they're no longer just taught in Oxford they're also taught online so we've got students in Brazil or Venezuela or Hong Kong doing the course along with people in Oxford but that argument about globalization meaning that governments can't do anything I think we're oversimplified and a bit disingenuous oversimplified because actually a lot of economies are still quite different Germany from Britain from Taiwan or whatever but also it's not as if this globalization was something that just happened instead of governments could no longer do anything this globalization was something that the governments particularly the British government delivered important points in that free market, laissez-faire form so I've mentioned, yeah me and Linda you went on to discuss all these issues in a number of podcasts and all these are downloadable free of charge they should be accessible through the department's website but something called iTunes U as well as Google which has got free talks from all the leading universities across the world and I'm pleased to say that Oxford has got more material and downloads there than any other university and many of them are the most popular ones from this department most points about globalization in a book I edited with leading people around the world really exposing this idea that globalization means that nothing can be done and that's used as the textbook of an online course we do called globalization which I wrote, I mentioned Linda you has written one on globally new economic powers and I have done one on globalization so sister courses I mean just to show that I'm not just saying this all after the event just because the financial system collapsed in 2007 I got this quote from somewhere somewhere from 1999 that in fact the economy is becoming increasingly internationalized is not to take the form that this process is taking the free market laissez-faire agenda is one being pursued by those who benefit from such a deregulated when it takes all environment but it is not the only choice majority of the world's population is an inappropriate one and I think that remains true is demonstrated even more forcefully by the global financial crash so this is the online course we've got on globalization these are 10-week courses we've run each term so I'm starting in this term is one that's full up obviously because it's not starting until January now the reason to euro crisis you'll have seen that what Ong Nishaun laws has made into the Oxford diction rate so we can now refer to it a situation that's been comprehensively mismanaged by a string of blunders and miscalculations which is a fair enough description of the euro crisis but I think there's two key points about the crisis in the euro firstly I would say well again I told you so because I did in a book in 1988 I think the euro was again it was designed very much influenced by the economic orthodoxy as if markets just work perfectly and you can just put up a currency and everything would be fine understanding all the institutional factors the fact that different societies and economies are operating differently that's going to create frictions and so on so I think there was a it's another thing I think mainstream economics got rather wrong but secondly in terms of the current crisis it wasn't just that the Goldman Sachs that cooked the books for the Greek government and so on it was fundamentally that the banks had been allied to get too big to fail so the banks were just ridiculously large compared to the economies they were operating in whether it was in Iceland or Britain and so it's true that the governments just couldn't allow them to fail it really would have caused a complete collapse of the whole economy so the governments did have to bail them out and that did, along with the fact that there was a recession which always leads to increased government debt as the nationalisation comes in did cause the sovereign debt crisis and the euro crisis so, economic prospects without wanting to depress everyone too much and I think there is a real danger about a lost decades that phrase comes from Japan where two decades ago they had a similar thing huge bubble crash and very slow stagnation really since then compared to their very dynamic growth up until the fact they got into that echo model of speculation and bubbles and I was saying this five years ago that the crash happened this danger unfortunately we already had a half lost decade and things are still not looking very promising and before to the 1929 watery crash and the Great Depression which fell into the Second World War and obviously things were pretty grim throughout the 1930s but at least in terms of the output of the national income there was some recovery so generally the economy had recovered by 1933 four years later whereas here five years after the crash output in national income in Britain is still below the level it was at the time of the crash which people just weren't expecting people just assumed that it would just recover like economies generally do recover so I think that's a real problem but more fundamentally there just seems to be a huge complacency that there are nice some regions things will recover in and so that will be okay whereas the problem I think is if it's a lie just to go back to the same old way then there will be another global financial crash whether it's in 10 years time or 20 years time and as we've seen in the past five years that's not something which can be easily afforded and here is an example of that thing where in good enough shape to start making the same mistakes again which is basically the attitude of order rooms in Britain and government so what next well this is a packed slide with five lecture topics each of which is in some sense but the key point I make is that I do need to repounce the economy the problem is everyone says that and then no one does anything but to stress the point I was making at the beginning that that's not something which can be done just by a little tinkering or building a few houses what's needed is a real epochal change as has happened in the history of economies before to get on to a completely different trajectory in this menu of deregulation and laissez-faire get back to economic sustainability but also embed environmental sustainability have a real green new deal along the lines of the scale of the new deal in America in the 1930s unfortunately that green new deal has been used as a phrase by the current government for policies they've got where I think you can loft your roof and they'll lend you the money to get back not surprising I think I just saw the figures where from this multimillion pound scheme I think 27 people have taken it up and also what they should be doing is just doing it free for all houses and properties across the country in a massive 10 year programme to not just boost economy but keep that going in a sustained way and on top of the need to move on to economic and environmental sustainability I'd say social sustainability as well I haven't mentioned inequality but obviously one thing which happened dramatically if you see it figures during that whole year of laissez-faire deregulation 1970s, 80s, 90s was this ballooning of inequality so that income and wealth inequality today is just massively higher than it was 30 years ago in this country but globally as well so a number of five key points there are obviously others which could be mentioned one is corporate diversity and the British economy in particular is dominated by large large companies obviously the six large energy companies have been in the news recently with the Ed Miliband's plan to stop them putting out prices any further for 20 months but just generally the economy is dominated by a few large energy companies a few large banks compared to other countries before by globalisation doesn't mean that all countries are saying so in Germany for example the financial sector about a third of the companies will be publicly owned by national government or regionally or locally about a third by different forms of mutuals or cooperative banks and about a third the sort of private banks that we've got that completely dominate the sector and in terms of private companies the very PLCs corporate governments needs to embed a long term a longer time outlook it shouldn't have this sort of quarterly financial report with a pressure on managers to keep the share price up the whole time for fear that they'll be taken over and the fact that companies it's so easy to take over a British company is again it's quite peculiar in this country most other economies don't operate like that invest in long term training research around innovation where again one difference in Britain is that you as a board of directors decide to do that by writing a company the danger is a big other company will see those investments and take you over and asset strip that part of the operation investment people describe that as high commitment work systems that means really most motivated people by making them feel engaged including through the use of employer ownership like at John Lewis or other companies which have got an element of employer ownership and a cooperative culture between companies but universities elsewhere which again other economies like Germany do much better than we do some of this was looked at and set out in the reports of the ownership some called the ownership commission set out to look at these issues of ownership and corporate ownership in Britain it was chaired by Will Hutton who used to be an official observer and when he was chairing this he was head of the work foundation complete coincidentally since he moved to Oxford head of Hertford College thank you Hertford College unless this report is a big report but it is downloadable free of charge by the way I am also present at Kellogg College which is the largest graduate college in Oxford and the reason is the largest is it was set up to look after students who wanted to carry on working while they did their postgraduate degrees in Montymonte in Sustainable Development Everton Space Healthcare and so on it proved so popular by now by far the largest graduate college and I've got a centre for mutual employer and business there where this and a lot of other reports are all downloadable free of charges as PDFs if you know where I am if anyone wants paper copies I can send them to you just let me know afterwards on email me and finally I think we do need a revolution as I was saying so the bad news is it's not going to be simple or easy to get a real change of mindsets across the policy making groups in society but Oxford should be taking a lead and the good news is I think we are in particular in particular this department with the courses you've seen and in particular the online economics courses where I mentioned the globalisation of economic powers introduction to macroeconomics microeconomics and this latest one which is starting in a week's time first time is on employee ownership which I would highly recommend it sounds like quite a narrow topic which is a very good course which starts off talking about what went wrong with companies leading up to the credit crunch and what sort of different companies could be evolved in the future looking at examples like John Lewis but also the monitor gone region in Spain where you got 100,000 people in the employee owned companies linked together I had just checked it's starting next week there are some places available but the deadline is this coming Tuesday to do it so if anyone wants to do it you need to register about Tuesday at the latest maybe before other people are going to register before you so I'd urge you to particularly register on that one but also do any other courses so thank you all very much if there are any questions maybe take one or two questions and then carry on over a glass of wine we've criticised the euro but the fact is it is 10% higher against the pound than it was 15 years ago when it was launched you yourself said that the prime cause of the problem in Greece with the euro was coming from the United States with bent figures from the American business and I mean the British economy is not exactly a master display I mean if we are doing that well out of the euro why have we been hit so hard we should be benefiting from non-Euro membership precious little sign of that and of course they talk about the euro as though not being a single economy the UK is not a single economy you go to Blackpool or up to Cumbria and tell them the economy is recovering and make sure you've got your medical insurance first and there are wide disparities within the UK look at Lincolnshire house prices compared with London yep no all good points but I think on the euro sort of more fundamentally about how it should be designed and so on I think there should be greater recognition that you do need to think about in economic terms and industrial policy fiscal policy across the area as well not just the monetary policy surely the answer is you need a single fiscal policy dating in regions you know rather than have each country doing their own thing and half them filling the books yep yep no I think that's right surely there's a much more fundamental reason for the crisis and so much as if you look at the latter half of the 20th century you've got most of the really powerful earning ability of the world to concentrate in a very small part of it and then suddenly China and India start producing vast numbers of engineers and vast amounts of innovation thereby creating vast loads of wealth into them which they don't allow us to go and have a little spending spree on isn't that a more fundamental basic explanation for it surely you can't really blame it all on the bank that's more of a symptom rather well certainly a factor and it would certainly be better if the world economy was more regulated to prevent those huge imbalances having grown up so I'm going to think those do need to be tackled as well but nevertheless that affects the manner of it breaking rather than the fact that it breaks I suppose well I think if we'd continue with the sorts of global regulations previously then those sort of imbalances wouldn't have been able to build up, there would have been pressure on the Chinese to have imported more themselves to reduce their balance of payments surplus I don't see how that would have worked I mean you've got the big changes of things like the separation of risky banking from safe banking and that doesn't really affect the fact that the big amounts of excess spending are actually coming from things like the generous government programs and protective barriers that prevent trade blows in both directions north south and east west and so forth yeah I'm not quite sure what there are sort of regulations that you're putting in the core of it like proper capital adequacy and separating the merchant banks from the or the risk-taking banks from the savings banks but that wouldn't really have changed the fact that the money was put that China was earning was pouring into America and wouldn't I don't see why how that would have imposed a force to push the money back and make them spy our stuff yeah there's two things these huge flows of financial capital finances is a new thing since the golden age of capital that was part of the deregulation and so on and there used to be controls on all those flows and at the time it was said that when you remove those flows okay you see a huge movement of funds just like when you remove a dam you know everything will sort of sell and then things would go back to how they were and financial flows would just be for real activities people are going on holiday wanting to build a factory in Portugal and that was a huge surge when the controls were removed and it's got more and more and more each year around setting out that you have more and more of this speculation and that is the point you make the fact that China is selling so many goods getting all this money and so putting it back into America and the other desert countries so one point is you know it was a new idea deregulating can go back to the ideas where you could have these huge amounts of capital sloshing around but what Cain said he didn't quite get his own way because the Americans were calling the shots but his whole point is that you shouldn't allow those imbalances to develop and if a country is getting a big surplus to train itself like China was they should be obliged to reflate their economy and spend more domestically and start buying more things themselves rather than having to sell them to abroad We can't be obliged to the Chinese to do very much but we can I don't see how the regulatory issues that you put in the core of managing it could have obliged our end of things to stop those flows short of capital controls and so forth that would simply have slowed everything down and made everybody poorer and stopped the Chinese from growing so fast I think it all depends who we talk about making everybody poorer because precisely because of the capital flows because of the financial crash we are now truly poorer because we don't produce anything for people to buy because we put all eggs into the capital flows going to another country and are taxing the profits from that and I think that there's more I think Edmle Le Van did have a point when he said that we can't compete with the race to the bottom I think that we really do need to reintroduce capital flows and that barriers against capital flows and that we have to somehow rein them back in to investing in the infrastructure in Britain so that people can be trained up to such an extent that China would want to buy our products Okay, let's continue this debate over a glass of wine but will you try to get in at the back? Yeah, I think you were trying to get into the back of this sort of Milton Friedman oldest flat I think the capital flow was this idea this Friedman idea that the world is flat and we should pursue this idea and now we're connected the internet is connected now we're all connected so let's get this capital flowing but that didn't work out so an author like maybe perhaps like Panjit Gamowat as a writer who's written in that area has sort of semi disproved this that cultural divisions and economics and governance and all these things and the world isn't flat and I think that's what you're trying to there's this massive flow of capital and why couldn't we stop all this but there was an idea that was circulated to every MBA program around the world globally and people were buying into that concept maybe perhaps they would disagree with me but at the time Okay, we run at a time so why didn't you take your question if you don't mind Okay, well thank you all very much this sort of mentality that was circulated was this idea that wanted to see that kind of look for the barriers that they found to be and the risk and the experiment that they had at least where they were at Gamowat is one of the barriers there are some barriers to Andrew Chris, I think where actually the worst in the city of the press we think hedge funds are horrible and it's very admissible and certainly a... Who developed the perversity though? Well I think the hedge funds are rather... Over the core of the perversity who do you think developed? Which perversity do you mean? Like if you want to talk about hedge funds who do you think?


OK, everybody, we're going to talk about local SEO. So even if you don't do a lot of local SEO like me, it's so important to know what's going on in that space because so many of Google's queries are turning into local SEO, local intent, local everything. And our next speaker is probably one of the foremost authorities on the planet in this space. She owns a Sterling Sky agency in Canada, owns the local search forum. She wrote the expert's guide to local search, local SEO. She's a Google contributor all around general expert and amazing human being. She spoke last year at MozCon. I learned so much. Excited to see what she talks about today. Let's kick it over to Joy Hawkins. Hello. So for those of you that aren't familiar with my background, I run a fully remote team of employees in the US and Canada. And everybody's remote, they all work from home. And although I love working from home, I do often miss the ability to do office pranks on my coworkers. So last year during our annual meetup, we decided to have some fun. And I had someone install a Chrome extension on one of my colleagues' computers. What it does is it changes the word cloud on your page to the word but for every single instance. And we installed it, thought it would be really fun, but kind of forgot about it for a few months. Until one day, my coworker sent me a frantic message on Slack. She wanted to know why one of our clients was using this website that was talking about butt devices. And she was very confused. She was like, what are butt devices? So she then proceeded to Google what they were and instantly wished that she hadn't. See, my coworker, Nikki, she was very confused. And she made some very bad decisions due to having the wrong information. I would say this is also true of many people in the local search industry. I often see a lot of confusion and poor decision-making being made due to having the wrong information. So one of the things that we see a lot in the local search industry is these studies that are done. And they're talking about Google My Business, and they often analyze performance based on these things called views. So these are these charts you see in the Google My Business dashboard. And at first glance, it seems like a very good metric to track. Why wouldn't you want to see how many people had viewed your listing on Google? However, over the years, I've watched many agencies use this metric and then run into issues when their graphs look like this. Like, why on earth did your views quadruple in one day? Or this, views flat line for a few days only to go back to where they were. Or this, the thing that people often get confused is because these examples are not matching up with other real-world data. So it's not like their calls flatlined. And so they're kind of wondering, like, should I even trust this data? Is it even correct? And the biggest reason why people are confused is because they're misunderstanding what exactly this metric is reporting on. According to Google's Help Center, if you try to see what their definition of a view is, it's not extremely helpful. I'm going to give you a few examples of how views are actually generated.   Additionally, if you're looking up, let's say your favorite restaurant on Google, there are competitor listings at the bottom of each knowledge panel. And you're not looking at these, but these are still all getting a view. Photo views are very similar. If you're browsing a restaurant listing, for example, and clicking around like crazy, every single photo that is on your screen will get one view. So you can kind of start to see how it's really easy for these numbers to get inflated. And the best way to kind of think of a view is to think about, like, hit counters on websites. So you know how these used to be these like awesome metrics that we used to think are cool back in the 90s? Well, honestly, this is very similar to how views are calculated. They're extremely high in inflated numbers. So a much better metric to use is searches. Although these are not unique numbers, at least they actually represent actual searches done on Google for terms that surface your listing. And one of the things I like to do with these is rather than looking at them in the Google My Business dashboard, I like to import them into Data Studio so you can kind of see them month over month and you can do this via the GMB API. And it's a much better way of looking at the data. There is another metric also inside Google My Business that has a ton of value and I rarely see marketers in the local SEO space even reference it. So inside Google My Business Insights, there is a section called search queries. And I believe that one of the main reasons why these kind of get neglected is because they only exist inside the Google My Business dashboard. So they're not yet available in the API and they're not included in a lot of the third party tools that people use to analyze their clients. So thinking about this, if you have to go manually pull them from Google My Business, wouldn't it be just easier than to look into search console which does actually export easier? Technically, if you add UTM codes to a listing inside Google My Business, you can look at traffic inside search console. And if you're not really sure how to do this, I've linked to a page that will give you instructions on kind of step-by-steps on how this is done. So you can track traffic in search console from Google My Business specifically. And you wanna make sure, kind of one tip here is make sure that you use the Google and organic for the medium and the source. If you don't, what ends up happening you actually end up stealing from your organic traffic. You might have a new client and you look at the organic traffic and you see a decline, not exactly what you wanna see for someone that just started working with you. So always make sure you get that straight and there's more details in that article there. But I really wanted to know exactly how the data inside search console compared with what you see in Google My Business Insights. So we decided to do this really in-depth case study. We took 78 different Google My Business listings for 29 different businesses. And for each one we went in and we took the top queries inside search console for the last three months and we compared it to what Google My Business Insights was showing for the last quarter. Inside search console, we were specifically looking at the impressions and clicks that were for the page containing the UTM code. So as described earlier. So as shown here, this is kind of an example. We went in, we only looked at the page and the activity on that page that was matching the exact URL we were using on the Google My Business listing. And what we found after compiling all the data and comparing the two lists was that 66% of the top 10 queries were different. So a lot more variance than what we were expecting to see. I'll share an example that will help illustrate this. This was an example of a plastic surgeon. In the last quarter, according to Google My Business, these were the top 10 keywords that surfaced the listing on Google. However, if I look in search console, this is the top 10 list. And the only one that matched between the two lists is the one that I put in bold there, which is rhinoplasty. So these lists in this example are actually 90% different. So quite some variance there. And if this was a new client and you were trying to kind of figure out which terms were driving volume based on these numbers, you could easily miss a ton of valuable information. If I had just looked in search console, for example, I might have concluded that lip enhancements were the thing to go after. And I may have missed out on lip fillers or lip injections, which were both highly searched according to Google My Business. So the real question that I wanted to answer was why are they so different and which one is correct? So first, unlike any other metric available to us, search queries in Google My Business Insights are unique visits. So technically, it might report on the same person twice if they're using different devices. So if I'm on my computer and I'm searching and then I go on my phone, it would report me as two different people. But it's not gonna report me 10 times if I go on my computer and search 10 times for a client. So this is different than search console and kind of explains why there was some variance. The second reason why the data sets didn't match is because one quarter inside Google My Business Insights is not actually representing the last three months. And I didn't know this. Like my entire career working in local search, I did not know this until recently. So we started digging around, looking for examples when I was putting together this study. And here's an example here of a screenshot of the last quarter, according to Google My Business Insights. And I pulled this on May 13th of this year. It was for a client of mine that does lawn care in the summer and he installs Christmas lights in the winter. Due to how much I monitor website traffic adds various different places, I am extremely confident that massive searches for Christmas lights installation do not happen after Christmas is over. It's also helpful if you have common sense here. So the last three months, given when I pulled this, would be February to April. But this is not reflecting searches done from February to April. And I also kind of concluded that was true because as I was going back over several weeks and checking this report, it didn't change. These numbers stayed the same regardless of the fact that time had passed. So I'm not sure what date range this is looking at. It is looking at a one quarter period, but it is not the last three months. And this helps explain why these two lists came up different. Google does not do this in real time when it comes to Google My Business Insights. The third and fourth reasons require me to dive a bit deeper, to further kind of understand why the data differed so much. We decided to break out all of the search queries into four different categories. And I'll kind of explain what these mean. So the first category are near me terms. They are literally that. They are terms that include near me. So like plumber near me or doctor near me, for example. The next type we targeted was branded. So we wanted to see, okay, like someone's searching specifically for a local company or a person that works at that local company. The fourth type, sorry, third type that we did was implicit. So this is where the user puts in a search that is local in nature, but doesn't actually specify a location. So for example, when you just search plumber or you just search lawyer, Google returns local results even though you didn't actually specify a city. And then finally, explicit queries. This is where the person actually specifies a location. So for example, lawyer, Chicago or plumber, Denver, et cetera, that would be considered explicit query. So here's an example, just kind of comparing the two. So I'm Canadian, first of all. And because I'm Canadian, one of the only of codes that I know is 90210. So I just use that as a default for all my examples here. So I set my location to 90210, Beverly Hills. And I did a search for Botox and I did a search for Botox, Beverly Hills. And I wanted to see just how different these are. And you'll see here, these two results sets are very different. The local PAC results are showing different businesses. And you'll see, of course, the fact that Google does return local results for Botox tell you that they do consider it to be a keyword that has local intent. However, something that I thought was really interesting is when you scroll down and you start looking at organic results, Google is not showing me local businesses at all for Botox. The only exposure these businesses are getting is in the three PAC. When you go down to the organic results, it's extremely unlikely that any local business has the SEO budget to compete with a site like Botox.com. However, when you search Botox, Beverly Hills, for example, the organic search tells a very different story. And you'll kind of see here, we've got the local businesses showing. The second I put in Beverly Hills, all of a sudden the organic results change. Another example here is comparing car accident lawyer with car accident lawyer, Beverly Hills. You'll see again, the three PAC, completely different results. However, the organic results, similar to the last example, are also different. But when I don't enter a city, Google is actually pulling in a lot of the attorneys from Los Angeles, which is kind of interesting. The moment I start specifying Beverly Hills, it is showing me specifically Beverly Hills attorneys. Even the directories that rank in both cases are ranking different pages. So that's something to kind of keep in mind. So I decided to try this in like a town that I was a little more familiar with that was local to me. So Aurora is a suburb of Toronto. Most people that live in Aurora, they work in Toronto, but it's 40 minutes away from Toronto. And I found the same thing happen. When I was searching for car accident lawyer located in Aurora as my location, I was getting all these organic results from Toronto. So it's almost like Google is like pulling in results from like the next biggest city over when it comes to organic, that they're looking at a much broader area. Whereas the moment you put in the city name, like Aurora, they are now specifically gonna pull in businesses that are in that town. So how this relates to our study. We found that the majority of keywords that were represented in the top 10 inside Google My Business Insights, but missing from Search Console were implicit queries. So queries exactly like Botox or a car accident lawyer where there's no city specified. And this was kind of interesting. So looking at Botox as an example, according to Google My Business Insights, Botox had 49 different people, like unique users, searching for it. But according to Search Console, it had 18 impressions. And I get, like we've already talked about two different reasons why these are different, but there was something else that I noticed while digging into this. If you don't rank organically, none of the mobile searches are going to count in Search Console as impressions. Now let this sink in, because this is something that I feel like a lot of people don't realize. There are no website icons on your Google My Business listing when someone searches on mobile. They actually have to click on the listing first, then they see a website icon. And that's important to remember because Search Console tracks your website. There is no website icon present is not going to count as a search. Google My Business, however, tracks your Google My Business listing. So regardless of it's on mobile, whether there's a website icon or whatever, it would technically get counted there. And looking for this plastic searching, you'll see the majority of the traffic that he's getting from Google My Business in the last six months is from mobile devices. It's getting six times the clicks that desktop is getting. And what's more interesting is when you look at the click-through rate, the mobile and tablet click-through rate for this business is almost 30%, whereas desktop is 1.4. And like we all work in SEO, we know that 30% is a very, very abnormal click-through rate, but it all starts to make sense when you realize that there are so many searches on mobile that are not counting. They're not generating impressions at all because there's no website icon present until the person clicks on the listing. And if I look at the entire site, just to make sure that there's something else not going on here, the entire site does not have this pattern at all. It is only when I start isolating the traffic coming to the website from Google My Business. This is what it looks like when I look at traffic to the Google My Business listing for just Botox. So specifically that query. You'll see again how crazy that CTR looks. And the thing here is you cannot use search console impression data to get an accurate view of search volume in local search because if your business gets a lot of traffic from the P3 pack, it is missing all of that information from mobile searches. Another really interesting takeaway from our study was the difference in search volume for implicit queries compared to explicit queries. When we looked inside Google My Business Insights, the total volume of the implicit queries was 51% higher than the explicit queries. I found this fascinating. After spending the last 14 years working a local search, I feel like all I ever hear business owners and local SEOs say are things like, Joy, I checked my rankings for personal injury, or my client doesn't rank for auto insurance Chicago.  So why is that? Well, what I always assumed was that implicit queries wouldn't be as great for conversions. And it's probably my background in Google Ads that kind of shaped this in my head. After all, someone's searching for plumber. They could be researching. Maybe they want to be a plumber one day, but someone typing in plumber Denver is more likely to hire someone near them, right? Well, again, I kind of questioned myself. So I wanted to kind of answer this question with our study. So I went back to the same set of businesses. However, I had to kind of squish the data down a bit because not all the businesses we looked at originally are actually doing Google Ads. And it's important to know like, local businesses don't generally have massive budgets. So these are all small accounts. They're spending less than $10,000 a month on ads. And this is often what we're working with in local search. We have limited budgets, and it can sometimes be hard to come to the right conclusions because our data is so limited. So we were able to look at a total of 894 conversions across these 15 businesses, try and see if we could identify any trends. We only included keywords that had at least 100 impressions for this part. And just to clarify, I'm not saying keywords with low search volume aren't important. They are hugely important, but we wanted to look at the top ones to get a better sense of how they are performing in comparison to explicit queries. And we also counted conversions as leads. So contact form submissions, calls using call tracking and live chat. And this was the breakdown of the conversion rates for the different types of keywords that we found. So contrary to previous assumptions, it showed that implicit queries actually converted at a higher rate than explicit queries. However, I want to really point out that this was not consistent across all industries. It varied quite a bit. So for example, compare these two. The private investigator here his top searched implicit queries converted better, but it definitely wasn't true for the auto dealer. The auto dealer on the other hand, his explicit queries converted four times better than his implicit queries. Either way, the concept that explicit queries are always better at converting is wrong. And that was kind of the question I wanted to answer. Something else to keep in mind, it is possible that there's another reason why small businesses and local SEOs tend to focus so heavily on explicit queries. According to our study, 40% of the top search console top queries that were missing from site Google My Business Insights were explicit queries. And this kind of led to the last and final reason why they varied so much. This is pretty substantial. Search console impression data includes searches done by ranking trackers. And think about this. How many keywords do you track for your clients?  Now, this is kind of a funny example. This is a ranking report that is run periodically when I request it for this client. It's a large ranking report. And we're standing a lot of different keywords from different geo-coordinates, so there's a ton of keywords total. Guess which day the report runs? You can kind of see the spikes there. Sometimes it's not even this obvious though. Imagine you're working with a lawyer in New York City and a lot of their competitors are also using SEO companies and all these SEO companies are setting up ranked trackers only targeting explicit queries. You can kind of see how the data starts to break down. I checked with Darren Shaw, who's a friend of mine who runs a local ranked tracking software over at Whitespark. I asked him, did the crawlers come in from the same device or does it come out as different devices? And he said, if you use a tracker that does desktop and mobile, you should get double the impressions, but other than that, it should be coming in from the same device. So theoretically, if you're using Whitespark, every time you run a report, it would count as one user inside Google My Business Insights for all the different queries, but hundreds or possibly thousands of impressions in search console, depending on how many keywords you have on your report. So the takeaways here, if you work in local search, first of all, Google My Business Views should not be a metric that you report on, use search impressions instead. Second, search impressions inside search console should not be used as a method to pick keywords. Use click data instead. Third, make sure you are tracking both implicit and explicit queries. Get rid of this thinking that one is better than the other. And fourth, start monitoring search queries inside Google My Business Insights. You'd be kind of surprised to see what you'll find. And that's it for me. Here's a link. If you wanna hear more about local search, we have a free newsletter, so feel free to subscribe.


Good afternoon. I'm Richard Jinguis, head of news at Google. And in my job, I spend a lot of time working with publishers and partners around the world.  With so many of you here in this beautiful and exquisite space. You know, not surprisingly, I'm someone who is, I've wanted to be on this stage my entire life. And as you've probably noticed, I'm not 27. So what's the lesson in that? Don't give up. Don't ever give up. Google, as you know, has applied great focus on people use Google to discover your content and your brands. We continue to evolve our understanding of users and their intentions and interests. And then connecting those users to the highest quality third-party content and services. We're proud of our symbiotic relationship with publishers. And enabling users to benefit from your products. It's the web's rich ecosystem of knowledge that allows products like Google Search to have relevance and value. And it's the open platform of the web that allows publishers to easily reach out to new audiences. In that sense, I believe that Google and publishers share a common cause. We both desire a rich and open ecosystem for media distribution. Today, we all have smartphones in our pockets, smart TVs in our living rooms, and increasingly computers on our wrists and our cars woven into the very fabric of our lives. People come to Google billions of times each day to fulfill their daily information needs. Whether that's catching up on the presidential election, finding nearby concerts, or, if you're me, discovering a recipe for a new cocktail. Primarily, these needs are fulfilled on mobile. In fact, more Google searches take place on mobile than on desktop. The mobile momentum, as you all know, is only increasing. By some projections, the world will have five billion people accessing the internet by 2020. Five billion people. From the coffee farmer in Kenya, to the high school student in Tallinn, to my geekier friends here in this space with a half a dozen smart devices. We're building Search to meet their daily needs. We want all of these users to have a great search experience so that they can discover and engage with your content. If you're a publisher, Search, I'm guessing, is probably a pretty important source of traffic. As the next billion come online, it's only going to become more important. But before I tell you about all the things that Google can do today, let's take a step back and remember how Google started. Remember, 1998, you probably had one of these sitting in your house. You'd go to Google.com on this monster machine, type in a few words, and you'd get links to relevant websites. At the time, the experience was truly magical. The world of information at your fingertips. And today, that experience is still magical. We recognize that mobile is fundamentally different than desktop. One can't simply port the same desktop experience over to consumers' phones. The needs of our users and their mobile behaviors are so different today. How many of you have been on a desktop or laptop since arriving at I.O.? Maybe in your hotel room you used your laptop or on your flight here. Now, think about how many times you've checked your phone today. On average, people check their phone 150 times a day. Among those of us in publishing or tech, it's probably even more. We twitch with stolen glances at our phones, lured back to the device for another convenient burst of digital activity. These short sessions add up. We spend 177 minutes on our phones every day, almost three hours. That means we're having mobile sessions that average more than a minute long, more than 150 times a day. And these short sessions are productive. In the past year alone, websites in the United States have seen a 29% increase in mobile conversion rates. We've completely rebuilt search for this mobile, always connected world. People want answers instantly. We're no longer sitting at desktop computers surfing the web for hours on end. Now we're whipping out our phones in the lunch line at the airport or while watching TV. We're searching for things that are happening right now and using many new types of devices. Let me share a video that gives a quick glimpse into Google's evolution over the past 17 years. Please run the video. When we were trying to name Google, we actually went through thousands of names. The name of the company has now become its own verb in the dictionary. Let's Google it. You can Google it. With the Google on the internet machine. Six simple letters on a plain white page. Being able to do searches in any language about any country. The thing when you're putting on a question, they'd finish your question for you. We have been working on organizing the world's information. Our goal is to digitize all the books. Today, Google announced Gmail. Email for everyone for free. Google is napping the entire world to make it more accessible to people everywhere. Google is jumping into the mobile market. Android was built as an open platform for everyone to use and build on. This is Crow. It's a faster, safer browser for the open web. Google is unveiling what they call the knowledge graph. We needed to understand the world the way you and I do as objects and relationships mean objects. Today, Google got another useful feature with Google Now. We are providing you with answers before you've even asked for them. One of my favorite cards is the one that shows traffic data for your commute to and from work. Think about how far Google has evolved from the ten blue links. We asked ourselves, how can we assist you right when you need it? OK, Google, call the Walker Arts Center. It's not just desktops, phones and laptops anymore. OK, Google, send me a text message saying you need 5 minutes. It's watches with displays, car consoles with displays. OK, Google, let's go to the aquarium. How can we help you get things done in as few steps as possible? OK, Google, OK, Google, show me my photos of Lucas with the pumpkin. But we have to remember, we have a long way to go. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It's been a fabulous 17 years. We've completely rebuilt search for this mobile, always connected world. And we've come a long way, both in our abilities, our features and the way Google looks. Google has a few new moves to go along with its new look. And let me call out just several recent launches. With our stories to read cards in Google Now, we suggest new stories based on the reader's content, contexts and interests. Since many of the next billion users will be on slow 2G connections, we created Search Lite to ensure that users on slow networks still get a great search experience. Search Lite, by the way, uses 90% less data than standard search results. We also started using mobile friendliness as a ranking signal for mobile search results. Now, searches can more easily find high quality and relevant results that support great mobile experiences. Whether it's our election experiences or our health results over the past few years, we've launched new features that feel right at home on a mobile device. And that's just a start. Although the device landscape has changed, search plays the same role it did in 1998, understanding a user's intent and presenting the best possible content. Users have an increasing number of needs, needs that can be answered by the content and services you provide. We're creating the tools and features that we believe will help users and publishers make the most of search in this new world. If you attended IO sessions over the past few years, you may be familiar with features such as App Indexing, the Now API and the Voice Messaging API. These features drive new ways of discovery, whether it's directing organic search traffic to your app or reaching users with third-party Now cards. Today's session is all about the new ways Google can help you grow your audience and your business. We'll discuss how you can preview fresh, real-time content in search to drive discovery and reach. We'll show you how we're leveraging accelerated mobile pages in search to provide blazingly fast experiences for all the great content you build. When your site surfaces in search, we want you to be sure it loads instantly because if it doesn't, abandonment increases and opportunities are lost. And finally, we'll show you the new tools and reports we've built to help you measure impact and results. Let's talk about rich previews in search. I'll hazard a guess that you're familiar with the image on the left. Standard search results. Since the very beginning of search, these blue links have been incredibly effective at driving discoverability of your content and the growth of your business. You probably already know that by including structured data appropriate to your content, your site can enhance its presence on search and go beyond the traditional blue links. In this example, what was once links to recipe websites is now much more visual, much more engaging. We call these rich snippets. With simple markup, you present a more compelling visual result with reviews, images and more. When you look at these results side by side, it's clear that rich snippets are much more enticing to the user. More enticing means more clicks or traffic. Rich snippets help users make more informed decisions with a greater likelihood of user satisfaction and deeper engagement with your site. It's a win-win situation. Users get much more engaging search experiences. Publishers get increased discoverability and traffic to their sites. But we want to use markup to make your content even more engaging to users. We want to take it a step further. We're beginning to roll out a new format, Rich Cards, which makes your evergreen content even more prominent on results pages. Rich Cards further enhance content previews on search results pages. If you're in the kitchen desperate for your next sugar hit, and I'm always desperate for my next sugar hit, a quick search for dessert recipes will get you a nice swipeable carousel of mouth-watering possibilities. Remember what I mentioned earlier. In these short bursts of digital activity, there isn't much time to grab a user's attention. The more visual and engaging the content, the better. For a user like me, I want to be seduced by that lemon cupcake image. And that recipe, I want to tap on it, I want to bake it, I want to eat it. A digitally driven burst of culinary activity. What are Rich Cards? First, Rich Cards are built upon rich snippets. It's a further evolution of the same idea. Previewing richer content on search is good for publishers and good for users. Instead of just links, we're able to surface information about events, recipes, and movies in a highly compelling, highly visual fashion. Just like rich snippets, Rich Cards use schema.org markup to help enhance the previews of a site's content. A rich card is a compartmentalized template of information that can take on multiple forms, depending on where they're displayed. Let's walk through a few examples. Let's say you're waiting for the subway on the way to meet your best friend, who's a movie buff. She's annoyingly smart. We all have friends like that. And you need to learn something about great movies so you can be reasonably prepared for the intense debates that always happen when you hang out. You type best movies of all time into search. On the left, you see standard search results with links to relevant sites that have top movie lists. There may be some great information on those sites, but you're not sure. You can hear the rumble of the approaching subway train so you have very little time to get smart. Now, let's look at the right side. You can see results with a rich card from Timeout New York City. You get a nice visual carousel with previews of the listed movies. Lots of visual temptation. You've never heard of Ingmar Bergman's persona. It seems impressively deep and intellectual. Maybe your friend hasn't either.  These rich cards can take on many different forms. Let's say you have a cooking website. First, your rich cards can appear as a part of a list of recipes from multiple sites. For example, if you search for pasta recipes, you might find mac and cheese variations from Epicurious.com and The New York Times. I love mac and cheese and I'm hungry for a taste test, so I'll do both. Second, your rich cards can also appear as a list of recipes from just your site. On the right, all of these tempting waistline expanding recipes are from the Food Network. Of course, tap on a recipe, go to that site, start cooking. Users are coming to Google billions of times each day with queries just like these. When a publisher's content appears in more places, in richer, more compelling forms, discovery opportunities increase. And those who click are more likely to have a stronger intent to take action, to cook that recipe, to an attendant event, to subscribe to a premium feature. Today, the rich card program is open for recipes and is being tested for movies. In the future, we'll expand to many other categories of results as well. Creating your rich cards is simple and only requires structured data markup. Markup your recipe pages with recipe schema, movie pages with movie schema. You get the idea. Many of you have already done this markup on your pages and then you add item list markup on the list page that contains all the recipes or movies. We do recommend that you submit a site map containing the markup pages through the Google Search Console. This will also help increase the discoverability of your content. We're just getting started in this area and we'd like to thank the publishers who participated in early tests. The rush of the effort, of course, just made us hungry for more. We're eager to expand the previewing of rich content throughout search. Users are coming to search for more than just recipes, movies, or events. They're also searching about things that are happening right now. And I mean right now, as in right this moment, not hours ago, not 15 minutes ago. Under the current model, publishers have to wait for Google to index their content. That means the freshest content isn't reaching users at the moment that matters most. Take a look at this chart of searchers during this year's NFL Draft. At the start of the draft, queries peaked and remained high throughout the event. These users reacted to the live event and came to search, looking to find fresh information. Maybe they're on their couch watching the draft on TV or sneaking a look while sitting in a meeting at work looking for the latest draft news. This is not unique to sports fans. People are coming to Google for real-time info about all kinds of things. The Oscars, the elections, and of course, breaking news. During the World Cup, searches related to the World Cup peaked at over 20% of all search volume. People come to Google to find information about what is happening now. That led us to think, how can we surface real-time results more quickly and satisfy those real-time spikes in queries? The question kicked off the development of our real-time indexing efforts. Instead of waiting for your content to be crawled and indexed, publishers will be able to use the Google Indexing API to trigger the real-time indexing of their content. Users get access to real-time results in search and publishers increase their discovery and reach. It's an exciting new area and we're just getting started. We've launched a pilot within the next few months and we'll roll it out to more publishers over the next year. As you know better than I do, it's not enough to simply appear on the search results page. To grow your business, you need users to engage. But far too often, users are experiencing pages that are awkwardly slow loading. We know people abandon slow loading sites and those occasions end up being lost opportunities. Plain and simple, what publisher can afford that? In fact, 40% of people abandon a website that takes more than three seconds to load. With every millisecond, users have to wait for a page to load. They're more likely that they'll give up and simply go someplace else. The experience of reading content on the web today can be painful. We've all had these bad experiences. There's the slow loading web page. Heavy pages to trying to do way too much when the network connection or the device simply isn't up to the task. You can almost feel the page straining under the weight of the data. Sucking the life out of the battery and bringing your phone's processor to its knees. All you can do is wait and wait and wait. And then there's that page with the sticky scroll. You start to scroll, you get nothing. No buttery smooth scroll for you. Your finger isn't strong enough to scroll that page. And last but not least, that page that seems to fully load, you think it has and you're happily reading along when all of a sudden a late loading ad or some other component pops in. Shifting the content you were trying to read off screen someplace. All you wanted was a compelling read. But apparently the page thinks that you wanted to play hide and seek. An effective user engagement strategy. I don't think so. It was challenges like these that were at the core of the initiative that we together with three dozen publishers and tech companies started last fall called the Accelerated Mobile Pages Project. The AMP Project is an open source initiative that embodies the vision that publishers can create mobile optimized content once and have it load instantly everywhere to the benefit of their user experiences, their business models, their destinies. It's been amazing to see so many people, so many companies come together and build a solution that would improve the mobile web experience for everyone. Not only publishers, but ad tech companies, analytics companies, discovery platforms, CMS providers. During the development of the project, competitors came together in the same room and collaborated on a common cause. It was really inspiring to see. This is the way it had to be. We felt it was important that a solution be driven by the industry, not just a single player. This way, everyone is invested. Everyone can share their expertise and we can learn from one another in order to achieve the best possible outcome. Let me share a video that I think captures this collaborative spirit of the AMP Project. Let's check it out. Those of us when we first started playing with the web, the great thing was that you could surf.  It was the single greatest driver of innovation that we've ever seen. Thanks to smartphones. Everybody has the internet in their pocket. But the mobile web is really at odds with what everybody does on the web, which is surf and browse, and that should all be fast and easy. And right now it just isn't. So this thing which should be a source of utter wonder is a source of frustration. Waiting. Waiting. Not letting me scroll. Now it's loaded. People bounce. So if the page doesn't load within a couple seconds, they move on to the next page. That is the worst possible outcome for everyone involved. So Google together with dozens of other publishers and technology companies sat down to try to find a solution for this. And our solution was the AMP Project. AMP is a fantastic industry collaborative approach to make mobile web faster. You'll see the benefits of an AMP page when you first go to one. The first thing is instant speed. The next click is only sort of like one little scroll away. More people will see us. More people will see our ads. More people will be able to read our content. We love the ability to style our own pages. It's a great opportunity for us to really look like our brand, feel like our brand. With this sort of open philosophy that it's unfettered and unrestricted and you can do pretty much anything you'd like with it.  And the best way to do that with an engineering project is to make it an open source project. We feel like it's really important that there's not a gatekeeper between a publisher and them reaching their audience. The success of the AMP Project is not going to be based on the leadership of one. It's going to be based on the leadership of many. You have a problem that is common to others. You work together to find a common solution. Sort of like all of a sudden everybody jumping in and doing stuff and then something comes out which is great. Something that we've needed to do for a very long time as an industry. This is the spirit of the web at its best. Just give it a try. Show up at the GitHub page. Read the documentation. See what it would mean for your pages. We shouldn't be fighting over what a hyperlink is anymore. It's time to figure out how to tell the best stories. You know, those of us involved with the AMP Project are involved in many regards because we love the web and we want the web to be as vibrant and healthy as all of us know it can be. We want it to be fast and furiously compelling. We want to make the web great again. It's really as simple as that. Can we make the web great again? Who was that guy? Some of you might have noticed that a couple of people in that video have moved on to impressive new opportunities. I think of that as another demonstration of the power of AMP to accelerate careers. AMP is very easy to use, if you haven't tried it. And its underpinnings should be familiar to anyone creating web content today. We've invited a lot of familiar friends to this party. AMP HTML is HTML with a couple of extra twists and tricks. JavaScript plays an instrumental role via the AMP JavaScript library and within sandboxed components that you can build. CSS continues to be at your disposal for styling. And we've brought smart caching into the model. AMP is based on web technologies and web principles. We didn't want to turn our backs on what makes the web the web. We didn't want to build entirely new technology stacks. Instead, all it took was some imagination to smartly rearrange the existing bits that were already there. Simply stated, it's just in time loading of data, just in time processing of components, just in time rendering of pages. And to be clear, AMP isn't just about instantly surfacing content on Google search or other discovery platforms. It's about building fast, elegant websites. When we bring it all together, we find that an AMP page loads four times faster and uses ten times less data compared to a non-AMP page. And that doesn't include the added performance benefits when smart caching and pre-rendering are brought into the equation. Like I mentioned earlier, AMP is an open source project. The activity and engagement we've seen has been tremendous and inspiring. Over 7,300 developers have engaged with the effort. There have been over 1,900 code submissions from developers. The project has put out 88 releases so far, about two releases per week. Not bad for a project that's about eight months old. The velocity has been incredible. And I thank each and every one of you who've helped to make that happen. From discovery platforms like Twitter, Line, Pinterest, to CMS providers like WordPress and Drupal, to dozens of analytics providers and ad networks, it's been great to see the momentum behind AMP. But the proof is in the adoption. The adoption curve is remarkable. We've seen 125 million AMP documents in our index from over 640,000 domains from every corner of the globe, and it continues to increase every day. Just like many publishers, Google is also making good use of AMP. Earlier this year, we launched AMPed news carousels within Google Search on the mobile web. And that makes it easier than ever to get discovered on Google Search. With AMPed news carousels, users can not only read instantly loading articles, but swipe between articles that also load instantly. Now, I'm not a rocket scientist, but I know that we can't expand the amount of time in the day, but we can help users consume more content in the time they do have. We're now expanding AMP both within Search and across other Google properties, like the recently launched Google News and Weather app in the United States edition. Over the next several weeks, we'll be rolling out the AMP experience to the iOS and Android Google Search apps as well, and we'll continue beyond that. We're also working to bring AMP to new types of content. We just started to experiment with combining rich cards in AMP. When you combine the two, users get an incredibly rich and fast experience. Users can tap on your rich card and view a recipe instantly. They can preview more recipes instantly by swiping left or right within the carousel thanks to the instant nature of AMP. We're launching this experience first with recipes and plan to support many other content sites soon. AMP will also be part of the real-time indexing effort that I talked about earlier. Now, let's take a look at the tools we built to help you measure the results of the features I've talked about. Search Console helps you monitor and maintain your site's presence on Google Search. If you haven't done it so far, I strongly recommend you verify ownership of your site in Search Console. It provides many tools to improve the search experience for your content. We've added a new report to Search Console that will help you understand you have implementation errors in rich cards. It'll even suggest which cards can benefit from additional markup. To use the tool, just log in to Search Console and select the rich card report. The report will show you the overall status for your site. In this case, you can see the site has done a fine job and they don't have any invalid cards. They do, however, have many cards on the site that can benefit from marking up more fields. We mark them as enhanceable cards. The report will also show you examples of any errors down to the specific field on a specific URL. It can also guide you to the updated structured data testing tool. The structured data testing tool allows you to run a live test on your pages. This can highlight all the errors and enhancement opportunities you have on your cards. This is one of the most popular tools and it is incredibly useful for stamping out problems before they occur. You can even simulate how your card will actually look on the search results page by using the newly added preview functionality. It was highly requested and it should make the tool ever more effective. The AMP project, by the way, also provides a mechanism to validate AMP files. In Search Console, we surface AMP errors in your crawled AMP content to make it easier for you to address any fixes. This includes the structured data requirements for AMP features like the Top Stories carousel. We also recently launched an AMP report that shows impression, click, and CTR data for just your AMP content. You can try the feature today by simply logging into your Search Console account, go to the Search and Analytics report, and filter to AMP for search types. You can even compare how AMP metrics stack against other search features like your search result links. AMP has been a very fast-moving initiative, as I noted, and we want to thank the many AMP developers who've contributed not only valuable feedback but code and helped us tweak the tools I'm talking about here as the project evolved. For some hands-on experience, check out the Sandbox. We have members from our developer relations and product teams to answer any and all questions and show you live demos. That was a lot to cover in a half an hour, so let's take a moment to recap what we talked about today. We talked about how you can preview richer content in Search for increased discovery. We announced our efforts in real-time indexing to help connect users with the most up-to-date content you offer. We showed how AMP can drive blazingly fast consumption across the mobile web and how we're working to bring it to new surfaces and new content types. And finally, we walked through the new rich card and AMP reports and the updated structured data testing tool. To learn more, check out these sessions that deep dive into the individual topics. And again, if you're interested in getting some hands-on time with these tools, want to review documentation, please stop by our Sandbox and that you can do any time during the rest of I.O. Google Search looks completely different from 17 years ago. And that's the point. And as you heard yesterday in Sundar's keynote, Google is continuing to evolve. Although Search may look different, content discovery is still at the core of everything we do. Whether that discovery comes from the Search Results page or the interfaces of the future such as the Google Assistant or Allo or Google Home, we want to make sure that integrating and growing with Google is as easy as possible. Definitely stay tuned as we'll have much more to announce as more and more features and capabilities move from concept to reality. As I mentioned at the beginning, I believe Google and publishers share a common cause. I'm excited to see so many people come together to ensure that the next billion users can experience the same magic and universal access to information that we've all enjoyed over the first 25 years of the web's history. I thank you very much.