Here’s why:
Smart professionals doing research in their industry want to read content that’s deemed valuable by a known community of their peers, not based on criteria like random backlinks (incoming links to a Web page, this is a factor in Google’s page rank algorithm), keyword selection, and ad dollars like Google offers.

Here’s why niche Web sites are better:

1. I don’t have to know the right keywords.
   Google doesn’t offer a non-keyword approach to content, which makes research about an unfamiliar subject difficult.  Successful industry-specific Web sites group content based on relevant sub-topics and known industry terms and approaches to information.
2. I find that content is targeted and straightforward.
   Google’s pages are lists of text and hyperlinks.  Niche Web sites offer specific, targeted content that is easy to find and read.
3. I can filter search results and browse by classification.
   Google doesn’t offer this kind of functionality.  Niche sites are so targeted, they often offer the ability to filter search results by sub-topic and the ability to browse by classification so that I can jump straight to current, relevant content.
4. I find authors I know and admire.
   Google search results pages don’t list authors.  Experts and familiar peers in the industry write content for association Web sites, not some nameless, faceless person.

   Bonus: I can connect with the SME’s (subject matter experts) of this content. Niche industry sites, like association Web sites, offer the opportunity to network and connect with industry peers and content providers.  It’s a value-add to which no search engine can compare.

5. I find content that’s related to my interests, not full of clutter.
   Google’s ads are irrelevant and getting out of control.  Good niche Web sites display content related to a user’s interests… so when I’m browsing the Institute for Supply Management Web site for the latest manufacturing data, I’m presented with the latest Report On Business®, too.
6. I find all kinds of resource types while browsing.
   Google segments its search by content type.  Good industry sites don’t only separate content by image, video, blog, or book.  Information is accurate and reliable, and segmented by content classification, not content type.

Associations are the ideal providers for these niche industry Web sites, as they usually have the inside scoop on advocacy efforts, industry trends, important shifts in thinking and early impact of outside forces on their industry.  But the power of knowledge sharing goes much further than that.  Associations have a unique opportunity to gain credibility and build their communities by not only delivering quality data, but also actionable knowledge and peer-to-peer wisdom to share in their trusted network of members.

To learn more about how associations can excel online and provide a better richer experience for members, check out the upcoming session “Competing in the Age of Google – Association Tactics for Translating Data into Knowledge and Wisdom” at the Association New Media Summit October 27^th.

1. I have to guess what keywords to use… over and over again.
   Every time I look on Google for content I know is out there, somewhere, I have to guess what keywords to use.  IMHO, this requires a superior act of skill and patience because to get the good stuff, (you know, the paid research studies, the articles by industry experts)… well, to get that stuff you pretty much have to know the lingo.
2. I find the results page overwhelming.
   Too much text, not enough substance.  I’d rather have 5 very targeted, reliable resources to read than thousands of unknown junk competing for my attention.
3. I can’t filter the results.
   Within both of my vaccine searches, it’s pretty obvious that there are subtopics to tackle… where to get it, who’s on the preferred list, latest or breaking news, how it started, etc.  Want any of that stuff?  No such logical groupings or filters are available.  Search again.
4. I believe the resources are unreliable and inaccurate.
   When reviewing the search results for “swine flu vaccine”, I noticed that Wikipedia out-ranked the CDC as a resource.  Seriously.  Don’t you think the CDC a more qualified resource to talk about swine flu facts than a bunch of wikipedians?  How am I to know if someone adding the content on Wikipedia is an expert, is a doctor, or is my next-door neighbor’s 16-year-old kid?

   Note: This is not a slam against Wikipedia, which does have some good content.  However, when I’m doing research, particularly for something that impacts my health or my business, I want to know who that person is, where they’re from, how I can reach them, what makes them an “expert”, etc.  Google offers none of that.

5. I find sponsored links are often irrelevant and just add clutter.
   I got a chuckle checking out all the people trying to make a buck off of H1N1 and swine flu…and yeah, you can bet Google’s laughing all the way to the bank.  As a prize to the most irrelevant ad, I’m providing a link to it.  The winner is: Dr Weil’s swine flu ad for antioxidant and multivitamin package.
6. I do not care about content type, I care about quality.
   I don’t care if the content is an image, video, blog, or book.  My concerns are that the content is reliable.  Videos of news clippings about H1N1/Swine flu vaccines are very relevant to my search.  Why don’t they appear in the results listing?

Bottom line, Google’s not a good research engine.  Tune in for part two, “Why niche Web sites are better than Google”.