Converge Or Collide

A couple of years ago, I went into how this can help agencies and clients in this post. The bottom line for clients & their agencies, is that keeping control of this is good for both. The comp model in the post, ironically, is performance based. The difference between what I propose and what Google is proposing is that by controlling the media all the way through to the purchase, you can optimized the whole chain. With strong agency / client relationships, agencies have an opportunity to increase compensation IF they increase the client's profitable volume, and clients have visibility into the agency's profitability, ensuring that margins really are being used to seek more sales.

Labels: compensation, Google

As always, randfish has great SEO insights into the components and relative importance with regards to organic page rankings for Google. 

Labels: Google, Search Engine Marketing, SEO

As Yahoo! evolves its search algorithm and pushes forward with its Google partnership, we need to be clear that Panama is not and never can be adwords in function, nor in spirit. 

On Google, there is a long tail. If you are smart enough to recognize a search term that others are not bidding on (or doing so minimally), or have optimized an obscure term, you are rewarded. You have a relatively minimum bid landscape to reduce your cost and you can isolate the phrase to maximize ROI. You can even go further and isolate the match type, recognizing that someone who types in a phrase exactly might (and often does) behave very differently than someone who clicked on a broad match delivery. As the markets mature, others jump in, raising the price of the keyword (and thus Google's revenue), and you move on to another group of phrases. It works out well for the advertiser, as they get more sales, and it works for the searcher, as we have to be smarter about what we put in front of them and how we treat them post-click.

Yahoo! however does not care. After all, why let you get a click for $0.25 on a long tail term when they can map that term to a more popular one and drive a $1.00 cpc? It does not matter to Yahoo! that the post click behavior is different. Nor is Yahoo! willing to take the long-term view (like Google) that will not only deliver higher quality search results, but could actually increase their revenue by helping develop the number of phrases that have value to advertisers. 

Think about the Google deal. Yahoo! has far fewer phrases on which advertisers are bidding, or terms on which they are bidding very low. This was imposed on advertisers because of the mapping of larger groups of keywords to a single keyword or phrase. There was no value in bidding on these keywords, and Yahoo! did not care; they forced an artificially higher cpc that could not be optimized. Google, however maintained a system where we can optimize to the long tail, making our ability to optimize based on post click behavior easier, and thereby increasing the value of these long tail terms. Now that Google has fostered the market for these terms, Yahoo! is going to de-map many of their terms (they have already started), so that they can benefit from the mature market that we were able to create with Google. 

Unfortunately, the inventory on Yahoo! is going to dilute the value that was built up in the Google ecosystem... not that Yahoo! cares; they'll get their revenue. Yahoo! would not work with us (advertisers) to develop the value within their own search product. Instead, they waited until the value was created within Google, and then decided to de-map keywords for advertisers in order to serve up the Google ad. If the metrics on Google's adwords program are skewed, then we have to drop the bids or drop out of the keywords. For those who think Yahoo! won't be big enough to matter, remember, we are dealing with a large number of low volume, long tail terms. Small changes make a big difference in the back end metrics.

Beyond the search terms themselves, Yahoo! match types are not optimization friendly either. On Yahoo!, if you are bidding on a standard match basis (meaning you show up when the user types in your keyword / phrase), you can be trumped by different terms that are on advanced match bidding (meaning Yahoo! decides there is some relationship between the search and the keyword).  Yahoo!  has made it so this is likely, based on the bid amount. So, even if you have an exact / standard bid against a keyword, Yahoo! will see what other keywords in your account might actually qualify, and then de-dupe the keywords based on ranking... The bid amount is very influential. Look at the impression distribution, it varies widely from day to day. Yahoo! will tell you that is because users' search patterns change widely day-by-day.  Our experience shows us otherwise... there are trackable patterns, not wide swings.

(We know that this is also technically possible on Google. But, you can see your impression share in Google reports that clearly indicate that your exact match keywords are not getting pushed aside. Yahoo! has no view into this.)

Unlike Google, Yahoo! does not encourage multiple match type bidding. It doesn't matter that their are two different post-click behaviors based on the match type. The system was designed to lump everything together, and then see where they (Yahoo!) can make the most money.

What Yahoo! has not figured out (that Google figured out a long time ago), is that the post click value is what advertiser care about. Yes, they give lip service to this concept. But, when they deliver a search product that actually backs up the rhetoric, we can start to believe that they get it. Give us:  true match type bidding, keyword delivery unfettered by mapping, real reporting, truly targetable negative keyword implementation (match type, no limits). Until then, they will follow well behind Google with a me-too (Panama) product that appears designed to maximize short term per-click revenue while giving no care for the long-term devaluation of the Yahoo! product.

Labels: Google, search, yahoo

Google is removing the min bid rules.

Essentially Min bids and inactive keywords are out. Instead, you will see a First Page bid estimates and keywords will always be active (though not always showing because of relatively low QS). The other change will move from periodic quality review and score updates to dynamic, on-the-fly scoring. At this time, I am focused on the minimum bid changes. 

What this means to you depends on where you are in the marketing chain. From the campaign managers to the product managers, these changes can have very little, or a very big impact. There are however, much broader implications for those who are managing the spectrum on online activity and relationships. In some cases, there is only one channel that a company will use. While I believe this is very limiting to the potential benefit, it is easier for someone to manage - fewer plates spinning. It is only justified if there are no venues for exploiting more online channels. For those who choose the harder, but more profitable road of managing multiple channel types, this gets interesting. 

___________________

Affiliate / e-tail program managers will have to pay attention to the landscape with the new changes. There are several ways to manage the search landscape ranging from no bidding to a free for all. Though they are quite common, I have never been a fan of bid caps as a way to manage programs. The market is too dynamic for a fixed value to have relevancy over time. As a way to keep some people out, there is a strategy to set bid caps so low that you know it is below reasonable minimum bids ( a de facto "no bid" rule). So, it is possible that players who would not spend the min $1.00 or $5 or $10, can now appear for $0.50. Discouraged from the market place before, these people placed virtually no price pressure on keywords. Now, they have a chance to enter the market, get some results and start appearing. Do you have any mechanism to maximize profit by ensuring only your best partners are showing up?

Before you think, "no bidding on my brand" as a way to keep it easy, be leery of this relatively lazy strategy - it is the realm of the naive and ignorant. With it, your life may seem easier, but you give up a chance to let your best partners help you while simultaneously exposing your marketing underbelly to the competition.

Competing brands or products will now find it easier to enter your bid landscape. If you are Sony and none of your affiliates or e-tailors are allowed to bid on your brand, minimum bids often made it cost prohibitive for your competitors to do so as well (quality score issues created high minimum bids). So, you could possibly control your brand's bid landscape (for many categories, even the minimum bids have not discouraged bidding on competitive brand keywords). This is no longer true. Mitsubishi, Sharp and others will not be hit with minimum bids and can enter your playground much more easily. So rather than have e-tailors that target segments of your customers to whom you cannot cater, you have given up the landscape to your competitors.

While this has always been an issue for the "no-bid" group, the reality becomes even more severe once the Minimum Bid is removed as a competitive obstacle. I can tell you, we will leverage it; any good SEM will. Your best defense to to build up a small, but strong group of e- tailors that will promote your product and services. Take up the bid landscape for your brand with partners that can leverage segments of your market where they are stronger than you are. This is not an issue of duplicate listing. It is an issue of directing users to experiences which are truly geared for their stage in the buying cycle or buying motivation.

Some segments are upper funnel. Corporate sites provide a level of confidence and information sources that upper funnel users are looking for. Other sites, typically e-tail sites with time and resources to optimize against conversion, are far more adept and managing the lower end of the funnel.  Well over a year ago, I vented against the branded keyword sales being a given.
 

I have seen first hand the differences in subtle changes, importance of MVT for the experience and managing SEM based on long term / annual trend performance.

Combine this with a compensation structure that encourages performance rather than one which simply encourages spending (cost plus) and the right partners, and you can develop a channel that is motivated to drive down market costs (their margins are directly affected) while maximizing your sales. 

This change in Google's policy provides and opportunity for online marketers to evaluate their search programs and how they will manage the diverse consumer base. They can either take the easy way out and limit sales, or they can maximize their market potential.

Labels: Google, min bids, Search Engine Marketing

Secondary Search: Search Marketing's Best Kept Secret By Larry Organ is one of those articles that just makes me wonder how far out of touch some, usually well informed and respected, people are about search. I am all for having an objective view of our search programs. But to suggest that running a second search team, bidding on the same keywords to obtain multiple positions for your site without acknowledging the fundamental problems could make one believe this is a quick and easy path.

On the face of it, this is a direct violation of Google double ad serving policy. Google will link the two accounts that are trying to do this. If you think you can simply create a second site, Google will catch that too and link the URLs. If people spend the time trying to do the right thing, rather than finding ways to mess with the rules, they would get better, longer-term results.

Labels: Google, SEM

Google's form filling bot a benefit to some, scares others. Kevin Heisler's article in SEW points out a dilemma that Google faces; in an attempt to homogenize the desires and intents of the masses, they will please some while angering, annoying or frightening others. I am not nearly as bothered by this as Kevin. As this question popped up in some communications in my company, my response was...

Labels: Google

At AdTech last week, I was going to meet some folks for dinner. I knew the
name of the restaurant and the street name, that's it. No address. So,
I pulled out my blackberry, went to Google, and wham! nothing. There
were some reviews, but not a listing. Next Yahoo! Go!. nothing. Again,
some web sites with reviews. Then Live. Bingo. No websites, no links.
just Name, Address and Phone number. Then click, a map. Oh, and I was
probably just a few feet from a yellow pages directory in the room. But, I wanted to use the technology. To me, this would seem like an obvious search. A mobile device and a specific restaurant name. Live knew (or guessed) exactly what I wanted. The other two were clueless. 

Labels: Google, mobile search, Search Engine Marketing, SEM

We know that many searchers use the engines as navigational tools. Often,
users type the name of the company or site into the search box and go
to the the organic result. It is simple and easy. Even if you miss-type
the name, the engines have become smart enough to know what you want. Now,
Google is leveraging that habit to increase the paid search exposure. 

Labels: Google

In November last year, I wrote a piecefor SEMPO
Global Search Blog regarding the plateau that I see for Google. Earlier this month, I
submitted a piece to Search Engine Watch which included my belief that
there will be a reduction in Google share by  Q4. I was wrong. It
actually happened in December 2007. Google is down slightly to 56.3% in December from 57.7% in November.

Ranked by Searches (U.S.)

Provider	Searches (000)	Share of Searches	Searches per Searcher
Google Search	4,062,536	56.3%	37.9
Yahoo! Search	1,273,688	17.7%	22.4
MSN/Windows Live Search	995,899	13.8%	31.7
AOL Search	339,761	4.7%	10.0
Othere.....

Source: Nielsen Online, MegaView Search

Why does this matter? Well, considering that Google is and will remain the
leader in search for the foreseeable future and that search will
continue to grow, it doesn't really affect the numbers in any negative
way, yet. It does, however, provide an opening. One through which we
can see that other options are viable and profitable. As this happens,
more opportunities can fall upon Microsoft and Yahoo!. I believe that the market needs the competition. Even as analysts call (SEW) for Yahoo! to break off search and outsource to Google, I think there is a long term benefit even to Yahoo! shareholders in the dedicated Yahoo! effort to search. With more brand dollars being
considered for search, and the search product itself expanding to
potentially include images and different ways to deliver results, these calls for divesting the core technology are premature.

Labels: engine rankings, Google, Search Engine Marketing, yahoo

Labels: Google, organic, SEO

Labels: Google

When I saw the article this morning in the paper, I had an initial reaction based on the fact that the article did little to help the user understand the issue. It merely reported that Google was the worst. I have since reviewed the study itself, and now understand why the article was so poor. The report itself was hardly an objective view of the complex issues surrounding internet privacy. In fact, I stated in my initial reaction that the problem with the media is that it does a generally poor job of helping people understand the issue and clarify it. So, you can imagine my chagrin when I read the following in the report itself.

The report was compiled using data derived from public sources (newspaper articles, blog entries, submissions to government inquiries, privacy policies etc), information provided by present and former company staff, technical analysis and interviews with company representatives.

The first source of information is ‘newspapers.’ Those of us in the industry are well aware of the inadequacies of the general media when reporting on internet issues. This is hardly a reliable source.

Then there is the ‘governmental inquires’. Sighting:

Generally poor track record of responding to customer complaints. Ambivalent attitude to privacy challenges (for example, complaints to EU privacy regulators over Gmail).

Nothing in the summary or the “detail” of the report addresses relative size or normalization of data, or anything objective at all. It all appears too anecdotal, with no real data point such as % of users, or number of complaints. I am sorry, but having been involved in market research for nearly 20 years, I’d be hard pressed to assess any performance level on “Generally” anything.

Okay, the studies “Assessment” process:

Where possible we present data on specific privacy practices. It was not always possible to precisely assess a company's approach in each category. As a result, we erred on the side of caution and gave the company the benefit of the doubt and assessed it only for what we could actually identify.

From a methodological perspective, this is absurd. Given that the source of the “data” for this study comes from public sources, this methodology overlooks two big issues. 1) By their very nature, larger or fast growing companies generate a disproportionate amount of ‘public’ information and 2) there tends to be a ‘pile on’ mentality regarding general media as well as blogs and other public sources of information. If you combine the methodology with the data source, you can reasonably expect stagnant companies to rate very highly on this scale.

When I got down to the “Why Google got the worst rating” section, I read that corporate “Ethos” was a factor. Ethos? This is hardly an objective measurement. Google stood up to the government to protect user data (and won) while others caved. You may knock Google on many accounts, but on Ethos? Google is pervasive, and I guard against opening up too much to them. However, I am glad to see that what I do share is defended by Google when they have it.

The privacy issue is real. Unfortunately Privacy International’s approach leaves too many gaps. It lacks objective data, uses openly subjective metrics and lacks a sound methodology. If this is the approach our industry takes on privacy, then the issue itself will not receive the proper scrutiny, the users will remain woefully ignorant and we will find ourselves victims of real privacy abuse.

While I fault PI for publishing this, I place equal fault on the media like Associate Press where I first picked up the story in my local paper. If there had been a proper review of the study, it either would not have made it into the press, or the article would have provided an object view. Our press used to challenge information. Now, unfortunately, it just passes it through.

Matt Cutt’s perspective
Danny Sullivan’s dissection.

Labels: Google, policy, privacy

It’s Sunday morning and I am on my deck enjoying coffee and reading the Sunday paper. Yes, the printed kind with ink left on my fingers and pages being inconveniently blown in the wind. This is my respite from online "stuff."  

But, as we all know these retreats don't last long. My local paper picked up the Associated Press story (“Watchdog group gives Google an F for policies”) on how Google was given a failing grade by the London based Privacy International for its policies on personal information. As I spent a good part of last week at SMX Seattle and discussed this issue, as well as wrote a piece on it, I was compelled to drop the paper, pick up my handheld p.c. and jot down some thoughts.

First among my thoughts on this issue is that the article does nothing to help the reader understand it. From a layman perspective one might think that Google knows everything about you and you are at risk of being terribly exposed to the world. While Google does collect and save search history they can only tie it to you if you let them or there is a considerable effort involving far more than Google. The general media has to do a better job of laying out the issue.

Second, and related to the first, Google's programs involving pii are opt-in. If you use Google, you know what you give them, you have access to their policies and, hopefully you can make decisions. If you are not comfortable then don't give away any information about yourself.  

Third, despite the market consolidators like Google, one of the neat things about the internet is the ease of executing choices. Unlike the OS debate where switching was too difficult for the vast majority and Microsoft had / has a virtual lock on the desktop, the URL could ultimately be thought of as the "User's Real-time Liberator."  We have choice.

Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of the potential for abuse. As Google expands its reach with acquisitions the potential increases for one company to gain access to all the pieces of our information and put them together.  Permissions granted to an entity separately may be innocuous. But, when combined with that of another, can become very invasive.  As consumers, we have to be vigilant about who we deal with and what we share.  Perhaps I am too "American" but I do put a fair amount of responsibility on individuals to be aware of the companies to whom they give information.


Later that day... I had a chance to review the the study. PI did a poor job.

Labels: Google, policy, privacy

I have read, heard and seen a great deal regarding Google getting too deep into our information. Often, the article or discussion is focused on a single issue at a time. Today, it happens to be the FTC review of the Google / Double Click acquisition for privacy. But, if you take a look at the tendrils of the Google Machine, and see all the places it touches and wants to touch, even the most open minded would shudder at the potential (and it is just that, potential) abuse.

From ads, to website, to web surfers, Google has its hands in all of it. Consider:

1) Personalized search. By definition, personalized search requires the tracking and recording of individual actions. They know what sites you’re on (if you let them, and many do), what you do on those sites, time spent, when you’re there. They know what you search for, what interests you have and the connections based on search patterns. All the while, the complex algorithms are building a profile of you based on all this information.

2) Analytics. I am often surprised how so many web publishers do not ask, “Why is Google providing such robust analytics for free?” They are collecting a lot of data. What kind of sites are people on and what they are doing there even if the individuals do not give explicit permission; the site did. Google can see what people who searched on a keyword did on a given site, what other sites they came from, and even to what site they go. Pull this data together, and you can have yet another basis for profiling. Combine it with #1, and…wow, you can really build user profiles.

Not to mention, Google gets to build extensive business profiles. They can see conversion rates buy product category, referring site, keyword, based on page content, site flow and, oh, user profile.

3) CPA ad model. This is a good model. You don’t pay Google until the user buys from you or take some other defined action. But, that is not all. To participate, you must put Google code on your pages. Google sees who converted form each keyword. But, because Google can view your site as well as all other sites, they can see what leads to conversions in a given industry. And, again, combine it with user profile.

4) Double Click…estimate 80% of ad delivery, users tracked. Take a look at the DART suite of tools. A lot of information is being captured.

5) Google Mobile. Where are you? What are you looking up? With GPS enable phones, you are tagged when you do a search, or access information.

6) Google Check out. On top of all that, they know how much you spend and on what.

7) Gmail – Google scans the content in order to determine what ad to deliver.

8) Google Docs. When do you start working; when do you stop; what type of documents do you use. From where do you access your documents. What is in your documents (yes, the get to look).

9) Google Maps: What are you looking up? Where are you going? What kinds of businesses do you frequent? Through your use of Maps, Google can gain insight into your off-line activities.

10) Google Adsense: Google’s ad delivery code spread across the net. Google sees when these ads (and therefore sites) get delivered, know the content of the site, and can see click through behavior.

Okay, so this is based on a few minutes of thought. There are more touch points, but I am not going to do an exhaustive list. Beyond that, if you read the privacy policy, you know Google will blend your information with third party data to add to its profile of you. While they will not share your PII, they will take information from outside and add it to their information.

Much of the discussion on privacy revolves around personal privacy. We, as Americans usually rail against this kind of overt data collection. However, we seem to have resigned ourselves to the reality of the ‘system.’ And, it can be beneficial. We can save time not weeding through bad search results, ads in email may actually be useful and websites might use this information to improve their web experiences.

But, from a business side, how much information do you really want to provide to any third party? If you take up Google on its offers, you will be giving them more insight into your customers and business than you will ever truly realize. Unfortunately while you are giving Google all this information, and they are marrying it with many other sources, it is difficult to see how much you are getting back in return; especially since your return is being calculated by Google.

Some, don’t see an issue, saying, “Google advertising is a market based program. We bid on the costs, so there is nothing there to negotiate. The market sets the price.” Actually, no, Google is no longer a market based system. The program allows you to bid as high as you like, but the floors, or minimums are set by Google. The minimum bids are not market-based, they are set by parameters established by Google.

Consider this: With all the information gathering technologies at its disposal, Google can know:
1) How much advertisers are paying for ads across a vast number of websites.
2) Inventory availability
3) What the customer conversation rates are for the sources in a vertical
4) Actual sales value
5) All the different sources of traffic for your particular site
6) The conversion rate for all those sources to your site

So, ask yourself, how much negotiation leverage do you have? Do you know how much real ad inventory is on the market? Do you know the value of that inventory to all the other advertisers? Do you know what the best negotiated CPM is? Through its analytics, CPA, adsense, adwords, Double Click / Performics connections, Google does, or can.

And, above all, if you have Google’s code resident on your site, Google also knows the value of all these things for you. How do you improve your ROI when the supplier on the other side knows the lowest and highest price you’ve paid on other properties, the conversion values and what the maximum you can pay and still make money? They hold all the cards. If ‘do no evil’ ever slips from the equation, Google can set it so they make (even) more money while you keep just enough to stay in business.

I am not saying the resource Google provides should not be leveraged. For most small organizations, this may work very well for a long time to come. But, for companies that plan meaningful ad spends online, think long and hard about how much you will reveal today to any third party. Tomorrow you may be wondering why they are always one step ahead of you at the negotiating table.

Labels: Google

When Google announced the Universal Search this week, I was more than just a bit skeptical. From my perspective, they already made it easy for me to dive into images, or video, or news, etc. By placing all these items on the page which is currently web results, they have to guess (although with very sophisticated engineering) what I want and prioritize it accordingly. As a user, I am okay with clicking a category link for a deeper dive.

Then, I waffled. I saw some results of the universal search and it was not overwhelming. They have done a good job of keeping the results clean in this initial foray. Images are there on top, but not too many to be a nuisance. News appears at the bottom, with a few article links available. Not yet truly integrated by relevance. So, all in all, the results are not bad.

Then, I waffled some more. If I was truly interested in news, I don’t want one or two articles at the bottom of the results. And a couple of images, if that is what I wanted, placed at the top would not suffice. I realized that my initial reaction, that it was a good clean result, was based on the fact that I usually want the web results, and these added categories were not interfering in any major way.

However, if I want news or images, or videos or books, then this provided too little of it. I will click on the category link, making the results of the Universal search somewhat moot.  I understand that Google engineers are superb. However, when I type in Saturn, sometimes I am looking at the make of car, other times I am looking for pictures of the planet. Until I am actually searching, I don’t even know what I want.

Another chance to waffle… if Google can really evolve this tool (and it is just in its infancy), to provide results more heavily populated toward my intent, this will be great. But, until then, it is really cool engineering but not much more for the users.

Labels: Google, Search Engine Marketing, universal search

If you have not seen it, keep an eye out for the Negative Keyword tool in your keyword tab on Google.  This handy addition will let you eliminate unwanted impressions and clicks that have crept into our programs with the expanded broad match.

While many of us can identify some of the big offenders to use for negative keywords, estimating the impact on impressions is kind of a pain. With the new tool, you can select specific keywords in your ad group, or the whole ad group. It will present you with a list of suggested negatives, along with an estimated reduction in impressions. You can then click to add them. This is great for streamlining your campaigns and tightening quality scores. However, before you jump on this, do some homework.

Take a look at your conversion data. At the very least, set a baseline for sales by keyword  "pre negative keyword tool implementation". Then, after the period of time you need to get a sufficient number of clicks / conversions, run the analysis again and compare it to the first. How is your conversion volume and ROI? Ideally, what you should have cut out are clicks that did not lead to sales and impressions that did not drive clicks. If, however, you find that your CTR, or post click conversion rate did not improve, or your order volume dropped, then the negative keyword tool may have filtered out good searches on a broad match of your keyword.

Ideally, your system captures the exact search phrase that triggered your ad. If you do this, then you can track it to the sale, and compare that information with the suggestions from the negative keyword tool to minimize unintended cuts is sales; if the suggested cut actually produced sales, obviously, don't add the negative (see below).  Yahoo! and MSN have this as part of their URL tagging also. If you do not have log file analytic tools that can help you pull the search query, you may be able to apply the Yahoo! and MSN information (to capture the exact search term) to the Google tool.

I mentioned above that if you can capture the literal search string, you should (obviously) not add the negative to your campaign. However, an experienced SEM should be calling this out as an opportunity to optimize the campaign. Take these search phrases and turn them into exact match keywords in their own adgroups. This is a great way to reduce costs and improve relevancy. The trouble is that most companies aren't set up to leverage this (it does require time to start and maintain). If you're one of them, then at just take the time to identify them and not to add as a negative.

Labels: Google, Search Engine Marketing

What if I told you that I could guarantee the price you'll pay for every dinner you eat over the next month? This way, you can set your dining budget and not have to think about the cost of each meal.  What I won't tell you is what the meal will be, if you'll get an appetizer or dessert nor how long you'll have to wait in line for a table. My guess is you would say "No thank you."

Google's new Preferred CPC is not that bad, but it can be if you're not careful. That means it is far from the "set it and forget it" solution. Since the value of a click is influenced by more than the CPC, and the influences can change while the CPC remains relatively constant, you can hardly afford to ignore the campaign for any length of time.    

Ultimately, you want to manage to the cost / profit per specific event (Conversion usually) and you'll want as many of those events as you can get.  If competitors increase their bids or improve their quality score, you will loose position and your CTR will drop, giving you fewer leads. If their offer improves you will likely see lower conversions. So, while your CPC remains constant, you're volume will drop and you pay more for each conversion you do keep. Kind of makes you wish you knew what was on the menu, huh?

If you have limited resource and the Preferred CPC tool is very appealing to you, consider two tools, which when combined will serve as a daily warning of any metric-changing events.  

First, created auto reports in Google and have them emailed to you each morning. They should include past 30 days and yesterday’s numbers for: Impressions, Clicks, CTR, Position, Cost and CPC (though this should be stable). You want to look for any sudden changes, or trends that will take you outside you're target metrics.
  
Second, sign up for adgooroo.com and set auto alerts to be emailed to you showing new ads and new competitors (preferred bid or not, this is a good tool.) This will alert you to competitive pressure that may hurt conversions.

Finally, do or quick calculation and divide the orders for yesterday by the clicks. If the conversion is different than you expected, dig deeper...something changed. 

By now, you’re probably asking, “what’s the point of the preferred CPC if I have to do all this?”  Well, that is the point. The CPC is not the key metric here. The amount you’re willing to pay depends on many factors, all of which you’ll need to monitor no matter what. This is not to say that the Preferred CPC does not have a place. If all your other metrics are relatively stable, or you are driving traffic with only the cost per click as a prime metric, then this will work for you. If, however, you manage your program to a profit metric, using the Preferred CPC is moderately beneficial and must not lull you into a comfort zone. SEM is just not that simple.

Labels: Google, Search Engine Marketing

Rant on why there is only one real contextual ad method

Running a contextual advertising campaign through the big three can be very easy, click and go. They make it simple, fast, and if you’re not paying attention, expensive (relatively). Even with Smart Pricing from Google, you can pay too much. In these scenarios, your ad CPC is the same as or directly related to your search CPC (Smart Pricing adjusts it downward). First suggestion: Don’t run a contextual ad buy mixed in with your search program – more below.

Before you start contextual advertising, identify your metrics. For some, the desired event is exactly the same as the search program, a sale, newsletter signup or other asset building event. For others, it may be less lofty, such as engagement metrics which they believe will be a precursor to an asset building event; something like page views or time spent, or an information request. This is not just good marketing, it sets the stage for keeping search and contextual apart. Only after thinking about this for some time do people begin to create a separation between contextual advertising and search. Even though these can be run through the same campaign / ad group, they are actually two distinct vehicles and the metrics should treat them as such. Which brings me to my next point…

To properly manage a contextual ad program, you should create an independent or separate campaign (or at least a separate ad group.) The new campaign will allow you to set a max budget and target independently from the search campaign. This has some advantages when it comes to optimization.

With proper tracking, you can more easily measure your results and manage the program against the content target metrics. You will also be able to finitely control the budget that the contextual program can absorb based on how well it is performing. By keeping it separate, you create a necessarily separate focus on the relevant metrics and value.

Since the intention of a person that sees your contextual ad is likely different than that of a searcher, the ad should treat them differently. Rather than a message used for search that may say “buy now”, your content ad can be more targeted to a content audience with a “more information” message for instance. You’re hitting someone in a different stage of the purchase funnel, so cater your message accordingly – then test it.

Like search, the content of the ad, and the landing page should be as specific as possible. This will allow the content matching to more closely align your message with the information the user is viewing. Allow some ad groups to remain broad, such as “home entertainment systems”, while others get progressively more targeted down to the models (if appropriate). Populate the ad group with the relevant keywords, allowing for some but limited duplication at the more general keyword level and reserving model or product specific keywords for the ad groups with appropriately targeted copy.

Finally, the landing page should be as targeted to the ad copy as possible. Bring the user deep into your site if the subject becomes more relevant. This helps keep the user engaged by tightly connecting your content to that which triggered the ad. If someone is at the stage of researching a specific product, and your ad speaks to it, but you bring them to a general category page, you’re taking them back several steps in the purchase process. In their eyes, they’ve already covered this material. You’re job is to add value to the research process, not set it back a step. So, help them by keeping their progress going and making the landing page well targeted.

Don’t let the similarities in considerations between search and contextual advertising mislead you. These considerations, at some level, are the same in all marketing efforts. It is what you do with them that will distinguish the vertical. Only by virtue of technology is contextual advertising related to search advertising. From a consumer’s perspective and therefore from a marketing perspective, these are two entirely different beasts. From messaging to landing page to desired event, these two are distinct. While it may be easier to lump them into a single buy, it is far less effective. Keep them separate in thought and practice.

Labels: contextual ads, Google

Google’s PPA has launched a litany of articles ranging from an acknowledgement that this is just one more arrow in their quiver, to “Oh no, they are going to put affiliate networks out of business,” and even “PPC is going away.”

For me, it is just another arrow. Unlike PPC, where there were a few so-so players (with many more not so good ones), and they could dominate just by being very good, the PPA world has competition that is quite competent; just as radio sales, t.v. sales and newspapers.  But, this announcement brought to mind the broader guessing game: What’s Google up to?

When the company launched into radio, I though it was far a field. Ditto for t.v.; newspapers, not so much, but still out there. My main contention was and still is that agencies won’t simply step aside as Google develops direct relationships with advertisers, or forces blind buys to media. Advertisers themselves are not necessarily interested in disintermediation either. Well, my perspective was skewed by the nature of my interaction at Google, with the sales and agency relationship groups. While still valid (I believe), I don’t know that it is the relevant perspective.

Google is fundamentally a technology company. The sales side has benefited greatly from the door-opening-great-product, relevancy based PPC Search. They have always said their goal was to make the advertising buying process more efficient. But it was always communicated as something over which Google will have control in the relationship. Media placement decided by Google and the goal of developing direct to advertiser relationships have given me pause. Efficiency is important, relationship control is paramount.

Well, most of the transactions are going to take place with or without Google (SMEs are a different and very viable prospect). But, Google can make them better. By interjecting themselves at all levels, Google can learn what makes the process inefficient at every stage of the marketing communications chain (brand / product awareness down to acquisition), and then offer up the tools to improve it. They become the conduit through which all processes are connected and managed.

Ultimately, I do not see Google owning the advertiser / agency – to– media relationship. But, they may just build the tools on which the agency – media relationship depends. They become the Intel inside the ‘machine.’ Agencies can claim a level of proficiency and acumen as they sell their use of the “Google Media Engine” as part of the tactical implementation of their unique agency strategy skills.

When we sell our skills as agencies, we focus on the strategic abilities we have. Uncovering the unseen, identifying opportunities and ultimately growing our client’s business along side them as no other agency can. Too often though, we get stuck on our media buying prowess. It boils down to efficiency – how much do we get for each dollar spent.

The truth is, any good agency, and there are a lot of them, can, or has access to efficient media buying. It is the minimum price for entry. Nonetheless, we spend a fair amount of time convincing prospects we do this better than anyone. It is a commodity. The real value is in identifying the strategic value of a media and being able to integrate it into the overall objectives.

If Google’s tools can abate this question somewhat and allow us to focus on our truly unique strategic abilities, then they will add a lot to the equation. If, however, they simply try to interject themselves between advertiser / agency and media, I don’t believe it will work out for anyone.

Labels: Google, Off-line advertising, print, radio, tv

Okay, now the world can move forward. We finally have a number from Google on Click Fraud (0.02%). Now, ask yourself what will you do differently? What if they said 5%, or 10%? If you answer anything other than “nothing”, then why have you not made these improvements before?

For me, click fraud amounted to two things:
1) potential cost recovery
2) an ego hit because some schmuck out there got the better of me

As for my campaigns, it means very little. If you do search right, measure to the margin per transaction, then the click fraud issue is already accounted for in your metrics. You’re already optimizing your programs, so there should be no reaction to the click fraud announcement.

It’s not that we should ignore the problem. By staying vigilant, we prevent it from ballooning on us and turning a once profitable medium into a loss, or at least marginalizing the profit. However, by staying focused, we can mitigate the impact of click fraud, and improve program performance.

Labels: click fraud, Google

It is the number one place to work in America according to Fortune Magazine and at the heart of the reason is that it is all about the people; the atmosphere, the food, the events. Google knows how to treat the employees. They culturally understand the dynamic of interpersonal relationships in making people happy.

This understanding expands to the way they treat their advertisers. At Google, I have worked with some of the nicest people I’ve met. They cultivate the relationships, understand the importance of good communication and go out of their way to make us feel important within the scope of business.

However, I wonder how Google views this dynamic between businesses and people outside its scope. They build tools that interject themselves between advertisers and publishers, agencies and clients. I looked at this before when it came to radio. The principals of dMark left, in part because they did not believe you can simply automate the relationship between buyers and sellers. There is a value to the interpersonal contact.

Quigo is demonstrating that the principle holds true for contextual advertising as well. While their transparency is important, I believe one of the greatest assets their platform has is the ability of the publisher to have direct sales and interaction with the advertisers. Instead of using the platform to create a vale between the two as Google does (and Yahoo!), they use it to help facilitate the interactions, with the added value of providing additional advertisers to the publisher if they choose.

Google’s push for innovation has been hampered by its dependence on the status quo. Now that they are big and mainstream with investors to please, they can’t do things that will put their current revenue at greater risk. Thus, change will only come when pushed on the market by other players. In this case, transparency and facilitating relationships between publishers and advertisers come at Quigo’s beckoning. Google follows in transparency.

The next acquiescence from Google will have to come in the form of control, allowing the publisher, through the Google platform to directly manage the advertiser base for its site. This is not what Google wants. They understand their importance in the advertiser relationship. But, if Quigo scales, pulls more major publishers, Google will be relegated to tertiary site traffic via adSense. I don’t think most people believe this is likely. But the dynamics of interpersonal relationships make this a very real possibility.

Despite 6 Sigma (and its predecessors) and all the business books’ protestations to the contrary, the world of business does not begin and end with efficiency. Yes, we must spend our dollars wisely. But, wise decisions start with trust, and trust is about relationships, not numbers. While Google understands this in its dealings with its employees, and with the work they do with us directly, they seam to discount it when looking at the interactions between other businesses. They can not assume their tools will be adopted over alternatives simply by claiming they are more efficient or effective. I guess the change here is that we now have alternatives.

Labels: Google, quigo

Google announced the launched their new search algorithm that takes into account a user's history of clicks, bookmarks and other behavioral factors that help narrow the links to what Google believes is most closely related (if they are signed in, which is my issue). On the Surface, I thought this was great. I am very different in my intent for a search on cars than most 40 year old men. I have had clients in this area for more than 15 years, and most of my interest is in the marketing of automobiles and the industry vs. the mid-life-crises-induced-hunt for a cherry red Vette (don't get me wrong, I've done that too).  So, if the information that relates to new ad campaigns, change in ownership of aftermarket repair shops, or dealerships is prioritized over new model promotion (still of interest but much easier to find), that would make my life much easier.  

 

However, I use our home computer for work. My kids and my wife use it even more. Our oldest son would likely be looking for pictures of cars he has seen on his psp racing  game.  My youngest would be looking for pictures and clips from the movie "Cars."

 

 If am doing research for work, or shopping for a new car, neither of these histories, behaviors or bookmarks has anything to do with my intent.

 

Okay, so I should log into my account, then when my wife wants to surf, she should log into her account. Then, my kids should do the same. Of course, I can just buy every one a computer. The truth is, until this process of identifying users becomes nearly automatic, I don't see the Google method as adding a great deal of value.

 

So, I am conducting  my own unscientific survey to see if my situation is typical, or if I am the  "focus group of one" I often rail against. I’ll set this up and post it.

 

Labels: Google, personalized search, Search Engine Marketing

I thought the Google entry into the general media world was approached by the Googlers I met as a bit too simple a process. Almost a foregone conclusion that the agency world and advertisers would jump on the Google express.

Labels: Google, Off-line advertising, radio dMark