RSS

Monthly Archives: September 2007

Google Conversion Optimizer: Why Being Average is Good Enough

This week Google launched their Conversion Optimizer, an AdWords tool that enables you to set a cost per action (CPA) goal and let Google bid your keywords against that goal.

Of course, whenever Google launches any new product or feature, it’s going to get lots of press, and this launch is no exception. What Google observers have also learned over the years, however, is that whenever Google launches a product, there’s a reasonably good chance that it will be a dud and quietly fade away over time.

So that’s the question I have regarding Conversion Optimizer. Is this a game-changing addition to AdWords, like AdSense or Desktop Editor, or is this going to end up in the “Where are they now” category, like Google Print Ads or CPM Site-Targeting?

Conversion Optimizer Will Eventually be Good, But Not Yet

My guess is that this one is going to be a winner, but it’s going to take many iterations to before it can take a victory lap. Why? For starters, the word on the street about Conversion Optimizer has been mixed at best so far. Andrew Goodman of Traffick tested it out and didn’t see the value add: “we got worse results with the optimizer “on” than we did with it “off” compared with the same days a week before, and immediately preceding days.” Others, like Jeremy at PPCDiscussions are still in the process of testing it out, but fear the worst (or at least, fear mediocrity).

I have no doubt that both Andrew and Jeremy are spot on in their analysis. Google tends to release tools early (perhaps intentionally) and then uses the massive free feedback from the masses to refine their work in subsequent iterations. So my advice is to tread very cautiously at the moment with this tool – wait until V1.2 comes out in three months and then start playing with it.

What’s interesting about this release – and why I think it will end up being a success – is that it is consistent with Google’s (relatively new) overall strategy of providing transparency and quality. As I have noted before, Google has launched a lot of tools and features recently to help advertisers understand and profit from Google traffic. Examples include Google Analytics, IP-filtering for AdSense, Website Optimizer, and day-parting and geo-targeting functionality. Google believes it has the best traffic, so it’s doing everything it can to flaunt that fact. So I think this launch will get the resources necessary to succeed.

Google Hates Middlemen

Combine Google Analytics, Website Optimizer, AdWords Editor, and Conversion Optimizer and you are getting pretty close to a full-service bid management technology application. This also resonates well with another Google mantra: cut out the middleman. Google tends to dislike anyone that comes between the company and it’s advertisers.

We’ve already seen how Google has reacted to advertising middlemen (via quality score penalties against affiliates), shopping middlemen (quality score penalties against comparison shopping engines), web development middlemen (Google Page Creator) analytics middlemen (Google Analytics), and testing middlemen (Google Web Site Optimizer), so it really comes as no surprise that Google would be working on cutting out the bid management middlemen (Conversion Optimizer and AdWords Editor).

And to be clear, each of these middlemen represent billion dollar markets. Google may be offering these services for free today, but I gotta believe that the long-term goal is not exclusively altruistic.

The Google Philosophy: Average Free Products are Better than Awesome Expensive Products

Now I know that my friends in the bid management world (that means you, SearchQuant!) will be writing comments on this post basically stating the following: Conversion Optimizer, or any of the other free tools Google offers pale in comparison to the breadth and sophistication of the for-pay features that are offered by the existing players. Hence, you can use the free services from Google, but you risk diminished performance as a result.

This, undoubtedly, is true, but I don’t think this is a very good long-term argument for these providers. First, Google will get better. We’ve seen this in Google Analytics, where the product has really improved rapidly in less than a few years. I doubt Google will pass the true Web analytics providers anytime soon, but they have and will continue to narrow the gap.

And this brings up point #2: as the gap narrows, the economic benefits of a for-pay service begin to diminish considerably. If a company has to choose between an awesome $100,000 annual investment and a terrible free investment, most companies will probably suck it up and pay the 1oo grand. But when the decision is between an awesome $100K investment and a pretty good free one, the choice becomes a lot tougher.

I often sit in vendor meetings where the vendor shows me all the absolutely incredible things his tool can do. It’s easy to get caught up in the bells and whistles and imagine yourself using all these features every day and making billions of dollars for your company. But after purchasing some of these awesome tools over the last few years, and using perhaps 5% of the functionality, I’ve realized an important point: you don’t need a Ferrari if all you are doing is driving to the supermarket.

And that to me sums up a lot of Google tools. They are station wagons compared to sports cars, but most companies simply don’t need the performance of a Ferrari. Over time, as Google upgrades from the beater station wagon to a decent Hyundai sedan, I think their free tools are going to gain a lot of traction at the expense of the paid options. Once the paid competition is gone, it will be interesting to see how Google uses it’s middleman position to it’s advantage.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 29, 2007 in conversion optimizer

 

Attention Facebook: Sell! Sell! Sell!

Good news for Facebook this week. Microsoft is rumored to be interested in buying a stake in the company at a valuation of up to $15 billion. On top of that, the press is preparing for the inevitable passing of the traffic torch between MySpace and Facebook. And, indeed, if you look at the Alexa rankings for the two companies, you can see that it is only a matter of time before Facebook is the social media king.

So does this mean that Mark Zuckerberg was right to reject Yahoo’s $900 million offer? Are the 20-somethings at Facebook HQ the future leaders of Silicon Valley? Should we start counting the days until Facebook surpasses Google?

To quote ESPN’s Lee Corso, “not so fast, my friend.” Yes, hindsight has shown that that $900 million offer was too low, and yes, Facebook will soon be the #1 social media site and one of the top Web sites in the world. But things may not be as rosy as they seem.

For starters, the mere fact that Facebook has so rapidly eclipsed the once-dominant MySpace goes to show how fickle Web users are when it comes to social media. Indeed, it almost seems like every generation develops an affinity to their own social media site, making yesterday’s site old news.

Consider what happened to Friendster (now for the 35+ crowd) when MySpace arrived, and what happened to MySpace (now for the 25+ crowd) when Facebook arrived. New sites – targeted to younger generations – such as Hi5 (now for the under 16 crowd) are popping up. What’s to prevent these upstarts from upstaging Facebook?

It’s also worth repeating the apparently-forgotten adage to never look at gift horse in the mouth. Frankly, despite the fact that $900 million has turned out to be a low ball offer, I still think that any start-up that turns down $900 million has a lot more hubris than it does intelligence.

Indeed, I once worked for a company that was (allegedly) offered something north of $450 million from an acquirer, turned that down, and (again, allegedly) is now being sold for something south of $50 million. Hindsight is indeed 20-20. Did we think we were going to be worth a billion? Of course. I remember fantasizing that we could be worth $10 billion.

How many times have you heard this story: A guy walks into a casino in Vegas, throws a few quarters into a slot machine and wins $1500. He immediately walks out of the casino and spends the rest of his vacation sitting near the hotel pool. Have you tallied your count?

OK, now count how frequently you’ve heard this version. A guy walks into a casino in Vegas, throws a few quarters into a slot machine and wins $1500. Over the rest of the weekend, he spends $2000 on slots hoping for that next big strike. He leaves town wondering where his money went.

Humans are hopeful animals. We almost always look the gift horse in the mouth and opt for the two birds in the bush. Young humans – say 23 year old CEOs – are especially hopeful. Some may go so far as to even say naive. They assume that what goes up can only go more up, and they presume that their predecessor’s failures were due to their incompetence and nothing else.

Sometimes, these CEOs get pretty lucky and seem to prove naysayers like me wrong. Most times, they don’t.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 28, 2007 in facebook, friendster, myspace

 

Yahoo is Better than Google at . . . Sports! But Does it Matter?

I was hanging with some fellow Search Marketers this week and they were telling me about Yahoo Fantasy Football. Apparently, for something like $10 a season, you get this wicked-cool amalgamation of stats, reporting, video, etc. If I cared about the NFL, I’d probably buy it, I figured.

What I care about is college football, though, and I do use Yahoo to check on the latest scores and stories. The only other site out there is ESPN.com and frankly I find that site to be too difficult to navigate. As far as I’m concerned, Yahoo Sports is the best.

And kudos to Yahoo for not resting on their laurels. They recently acquired the Rivals Network, a collection of college sports chatboards, and they’ve started to integrated “Yahoo Answers” into the page. No doubt they will also eventually integrate Flickr in here as well, so that we can see a combination of professional and fan-produced pictures of our favorite events. It goes without saying that sports is a huge industry – online and offline – and Yahoo’s strong position in this vertical is something they should be working hard to maintain.

So let’s see – lots of eyeballs, multiple monetization opportunities, Yahoo’s #1 . . . hmm, doesn’t this bring up a particular question . . . where’s Google? We pondered this a bit, and we came up with two good reasons Google has never attempted to get into online sports.

First, Google has mostly stayed away from content sites. Aside from Google News and Google Finance, Google has (so far) resisted the urge to become a portal, at least in the traditional sense. Is this the right decision? Well, I’d say yes and no. I say yes because Google has a bad habit of going in too many directions at once, and trying to create a bunch of topic-specific portal pages would be yet one more direction to go.

On the other hand, whatever Google touches generally turns to gold, many times regardless of whether their offering is even that good. The Google brand is so strong that opening up sports.google.com would immediately grab 20-30% market share, simply because people would assume it would be a better online experience. Just imagine how much money Google could make from a combination of Google AdSense and Google Fantasy Sports. Online sports is big business.

The second reason Google hasn’t created a sports portal is probably the most relevant one. To quote my fellow SEMer, “Dave, they’re nerds. They don’t care about sports.” Sadly, this is probably as good a reason as any. True, Google has a nice fitness center and sand volleyball courts on campus (and people actually use them), but the DNA of Googleplex does not ooze sports.

You could, perhaps, say the same thing about Yahoo for the last 7-8 years – the DNA of Yahoo has been “content” and “community” and not “tech innovation.” Thus, in 2001 as Google was still getting its sea-legs, Yahoo could have developed a better search algorithm, but that’s just not what the company was interested in.

I think it’s inevitable that Google will someday want to grab traffic away from Yahoo’s community portals – sports being one of them. And I think that they’ll be successful, even if Yahoo’s product is superior. For now, however, this is one instance where Yahoo is winning. As someone who bought Yahoo stock instead of Google stock in 2005, and someone who supports a college football team that once had 19 straight losing seasons believe me, every victory counts.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 22, 2007 in google sports, rivals.com, yahoo sports

 

Spam Poetry: Volume VI – Whooping at Females at The National Comfort Station!

Females always smiled at me,
and even men did
in the national comfort station!
Well, now I whoop at them,
because I took M eg ad ik for 7 months
and now my tool is dreadfully largest than usual.
go shopping

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 22, 2007 in spam poetry

 

What if Google Declared War on Comparison Shopping Engines and No One Noticed?

With little fanfare, Google posted the following announcement on their Inside AdWords blog this week:

The following types of websites are likely to merit low landing page quality scores and may be difficult to advertise affordably. In addition, it’s important for advertisers of these types of websites to adhere to our landing page quality guidelines regarding unique content.

  • eBook sites that show frequent ads
  • ‘Get rich quick’ sites
  • Comparison shopping sites
  • Travel aggregators
  • Affiliates that don’t comply with our affiliate guidelines

Sounds pretty innocuous at first, that is until you read the line “Comparison shopping sites.”

To me, this is huge news, for three reasons. First, comparison shopping engines (CSEs) drive a huge percentage of Google’s revenue. I don’t know the exact percentage, but it wouldn’t shock me if all the CSEs combined (Shopping.com, Shopzilla, Nextag, Smarter, Become, etc) made up 10% or more of Google’s AdWords revenue.

So to call out these sites as being ‘bad sites’ that Google will try to disallow is sort of like your local grocery store saying that they will no longer sell candy because it’s bad for you. As we all know, however, Google does not make decisions based on some sort of higher standard of ethics or consumer advocacy, so for Google to directly attack CSEs, there must be a darn good financial reason behind this.

And that brings me to reason number two: Google’s continued war against eBay and Microsoft. As I’ve discussed in the past, Google has developed a lot of products to directly compete against these two companies. And guess what? Each of them has a comparison shopping site – eBay owns Shopping.com and MSN has MSN Shopping (though I am not sure whether they actually advertise on Google or not). What better way to hurt your rivals than to prevent them from advertising on your site, which just so happens to be the biggest advertising medium online?

The real revenue impact, however, comes with reason #3: Google Base. Preventing other CSEs from advertising on Google will naturally inhibit their ability to grow their user base. At the same time, Google’s universal search initiative has increasingly emphasized Google Base results within Google natural search results.

Do you see a trend here? Less exposure for rival CSEs, more exposure for Google’s homegrown CSE. Granted Google Base is currently free, but to paraphrase Milton Friedman, ‘there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.’ Is there any doubt that Google will eventually begin to monetize Google Base traffic, either through AdSense or through a classic ‘charge the merchant’ CSE model?

A lot of people yawned when Google yanked the “free iPod” or “Made for AdSense” sites from the AdWords mix. I’m shocked that this announcement seems to have resulted in the same sense of apathy. If I was working for a CSE at the moment, the only yawns I’d have would be coming after many sleepless nights.

 

Being Too Popular Hurts Your Online Reputation

I admit to be a pretty friendly guy, so when a friend or even an acquaintance invites me to join LinkedIn (or sadly, QueChup), I’m usually game. So over the years, I’ve started to build the number of links I have on LinkedIn. As of the present date, I’m at 397 connections, with an average of 1-2 new connections linking to me each week.

Those of you on LinkedIn know that once you hit 500 connections, LinkedIn just stops counting your connections all together and users looking at your profile simply see “500+.”

In most cases, he with the most toys – or in this case links – wins. For example, when you fly on an airline, the guy with the most frequent flyer miles and the highest loyalty tier always gets bumped up to first class before anyone else. Similarly, in karate, being a triple black belt automatically gives you more prestige than a lowly yellow belt. Let’s face it, as humans we love rankings.

In the instance of LinkedIn, however, I think that reaching the 500+ level is actually a liability for your online reputation. Having 500+ connections makes you look like a “LinkedIn Whore” – someone who just links to everyone they have ever remotely met . Additionally, it devalues the links that you do have – it becomes impossible to really know whether someone is really your associate or just someone you sat next to two years ago on the flight to LA.

I admit that there are indeed many people in the Valley who do in fact have more than 500 legitimate connections. In particular, people in jobs that leverage connectivity (such as venture capital or recruiting) probably do have this many true connections. But as with most things in life, it’s difficult to separate the posers from the true connectors.

About a year ago, I found my name on a site called LinkedSEO, a Web site that claims to aggregate all the SEO or SEM people on LinkedIn and rank them based on the number of links that they have. When you take a look at the list of the top 25 or so people on here (all of whom have at least 500 links), you’ll notice that some of them – not satisfied with just being listed as part of the 500+ club – have now resorted to adding their link count to the end of their name. For example, you’ll see names like “Eric Standlee 2940+” or “Mike Walters 4000+.”

These are the very people who make life in the 500+ club difficult for the legitimate connectors using LinkedIn. The idea that the sheer quantity of links would somehow be more valuable than the quality of those links is really quite silly.

So I know that in about six months or so, I too will pass that 500+ threshold – if I want to. I’m thinking however, that I might just start removing some of the connections on my list that really aren’t connections, and just keep building my list of 450 connections, with improving quality every day.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 20, 2007 in linkedin, linkedseo

 

Way Back Machine – Some Stories You Missed!

I’ve been writing Blogation now for (amazingly) almost two years. In total, I’ve written 167 posts (including this one). Aside from #1 loyal reader Steve (“the Fandango guy” in Portland and #2 loyal reader Jeremy in Chicago, my guess is that most of you have not read each and every article I’ve written since 2005.

To that end, I’ve put together a short list of my favorite posts from 2006 and before. Hopefully you’ll find them interesting and still as relevant today as when I wrote them way back when. In no particular order:

1. Do Keywords Matter Anymore? An exploration of how important the “long tail” really is these days.
2. Google versus eBay. Google doesn’t consider Yahoo it’s primary competitor – it’s actually eBay.
3. Fire Terry Semel! 230 million reasons Yahoo should have gotten rid of Terry Semel years ago.
4. Do SEMs Get Any Respect? Pondering whether a mother should be proud of her son the search engine marketer.
5. Your Conversion Rate Sucks. 2% – great for milk, not so great for your Web site.
6. The Death of Search Engines. Still my favorite post to date!
7. SEMs Obsolete? Pondering whether technology will complete replace humans for SEM.

Hope you enjoy these – I liked them, but I am a bit biased!

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 16, 2007 in greatest hits

 

QueChup – Let’s All Send a Nice Message to the FTC

Any of you who are in my GMail contact list will have just received an email from me “inviting” you to join me on the ‘social network that is sweeping the globe’ – QueChup.

As much as I love you all, I didn’t send you this message. In fact, I cancelled my QueChup account less than 30 minutes after joining. That was three days ago. But that didn’t stop QueChip from spamming my contact list today.

And it gets even better. If you click the “unsubscribe” link in the email, it takes you to the registration page to sign up! How’s that for a CAN-SPAM violation?

In most cases, I feel like it’s pointless to do anything to fight spammers. But I’m so mad about this particular one that I’m soliciting your help to help me bring these guys down, and fast.

Here’s what you can do. Click on this link to the FTC Complaint Form. Submit QueChup as an Internet fraud and identity theft criminal. Maybe if we can be half as effective as QueChup at spreading the word about their site, we can shut them down.

Also, here is all the contact information of QueChup’s parent company, iDate.com:

iDate Corporation
6767 West Tropicana Ave.
Suite 207
Las Vegas, NV
89103

Legal Counsel

United States General Counsel:
Loeb & Loeb LLP
345 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10154-0037
Tel: (212) 407-4000

United States Special Counsel:
Ronald J. Stauber, Inc.
A Law Corporation
1880 Century Park East
Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 556-0080

 

The Bubble Cometh? Reasons to Worry About the Internet Economy

I remember the halcyon bubble days of 1999 and 2000. Launch parties, ridiculous salaries, people at parties talking in hushed tones about their big idea. That was a lot of fun. And then it all blew up. Something like 60,000 people were laid off in the Bay Area – you couldn’t find a U-Haul for 50 miles.

Today, the Internet economy is a lot different than it was six years ago. For one, Internet adoption by mainstream America is no longer an open question. And there are a lot of Internet companies that actually make a lot of hard cash and are profitable to boot – that was a hard combination to come by around the turn of the century.

At the same time, I see a lot of troubling signs that history may be repeating itself. In particular, there are three reasons I worry that we may soon see a market-correction in the Internet economy.

1. Eyeballs are Once Again Cool. Forget about making a profit, as long as you can demonstrate that your Facebook widget has been downloaded by 250,000 people, you can get big dollars at big valuations. In general, it seems like there are a lot of cool Web 2.0 companies that get a lot of visitors but don’t get a lot of their visitors’ walletshare (insofar as 18 year olds have much in their wallets to begin with). I’m sure that some of these companies will find a way to monetize their users, but I suspect that the majority will not. That means a lot of Web 2.0 employees and investors are going to get hit.

2. Salaries are Exploding. I’ve been interviewing for some junior-level positions recently, and I’ve been shocked by some of the offers prospective candidates have received. One candidate – with about a year of experience – received a $100K+ offer, not including the bonus, from another company. Folks, hiring 23 year olds at $100K a year simply is not sustainable. Have people forgotten the concept of burn rate?

3. Too Much VC Money. VC investment dollars are flowing into the Valley again. New VC firms are popping up, as are new incubators and angels. The top-tier VCs still get their pick of the litter, but I sense that the second-tier firms are struggling to get into deals. As such, desperation leads to poor investments and higher valuations. There’s gonna be a shakeout when a lot of these bad investments don’t pay off.

I don’t think we are going to see the massive layoffs we saw in 2000 and 2001, but I do think the Valley is too hot right now and things are going to cool down. I’ll go out on a limb and say that you’ll start to feel the impact by Q1 2008.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 12, 2007 in internet bubble

 

Google Sneezes! Google Plane Lands in Mountain View

When my old college buddy Owen posted a story on Valleywag about Google’s plane landing at Moffett Field, I forgave him, since the entire purpose of Valleywag is to write gossipy stories about Silicon Valley culture. But when the New York Times picks up the story and actually calls sources to try to confirm or deny the rumor, that, my friends, is a Google sneeze.

All the news that’s fit to print? I think we might have saved a tree on this story.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 10, 2007 in google plane, google sneezes

 

Dr. Watson, I Presume?

I got a terse email yesterday that said this: “As of September 17, 2007 we will no longer be supporting the Watson contextual search software. All subscription programs will be canceled as of this date.”

My bet is that 99% of you have no idea what the Watson software is, er, was. Basically, it was a desktop app that showed you alternatively search results for any page that you visited online. For example, if I went to ESPN.com, the Watson software would pop up and show a combination of sports news, other sports Web sites, and sports-related videos.

It was a cool idea, but plagued by two primary problems. First, the UI was annoying – it slowed down my computer and took up too much space on my desktop. Second, the company wanted to charge for it. I don’t remember the exact cost, but I think they wanted something like $20/month.

Hearing that second problem you might instantly conclude that the failure of this software was inevitable. After all, who pays for search results these days? But I actually think that Watson could have survived and people might have paid for it.

As I have mentioned numerous times before, I still believe that people will pay for a superior search service. And by superior, I don’t mean a slightly better algorithm, less ads, or a better UI. I mean a service that gets to know everything about you – through monitoring your search behavior, through user-inputed information, and through collaborative filtering.

A search engine, in short, that isn’t so much a search engine but more of a personal assistant (and no, I don’t mean “Jeeves”) is valuable enough that people would be willing to pay $20/month for the incredible time and frustration savings.

What Watson learned the hard way is that creating such a search engine is really hard, and if you fail to really create something revolutionary, no one will want to pay for your software. So though we all must say goodbye to Watson, I don’t think the concept of paying for search software is also riding off into the sunset.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 8, 2007 in watson contextual search

 

Jeopardy Answer: Who are Two Companies That Google Will Make Obsolete In the Next Five Years? Question: Omniture and Offermatica

This morning I saw the news that Omniture – the Web analytics giant – had acquired Offermatica – the multivariate testing giant for $65 million.

Initially, the deal struck me as a little odd. Both of these companies’ business models are being directly attacked by Google’s “software for free” business model – Omniture by Google Analytics, and Offermatica by Google’s Web Site Optimizer.

It would be like the world’s biggest typewriter (Brothers?) and telegraph (Western Union) companies merging in 1985, when the computer and the telephone/Internet were on the verge of destroying both businesses.

I do believe that both Omniture and Offermatica currently offer far-superior tools to the free tools offered by Google. But I also believe that a) Google will continue to improve their tools and b) there are many current Omniture and Offermatica clients for whom it is a smart business decision to save the $50K to $100K a year for each of these services and use Google’s sub-standard version. And the size of the client exodus will only increase as Google’s tools get better.

So this begs the question – is this acquisition a desperate attempt by two dinosaurs to survive the ice age/asteroid/intelligent design, or is there a more clever reason lurking beneath the surface?

My guess is that the answer is a little of both but mostly the latter. Conventional wisdom in the SEM space says that Microsoft will want to compete pound for pound with Google – both out of hubris and business necessity. That same conventional wisdom suggests that Microsoft needs to either build or acquire a Web analytics platform and to integrate it with AdCenter.

At the moment, there are three likely acquisition candidates for Microsoft – Omniture, Visual Sciences (the artist formerly known as WebSideStory), and CoreMetrics. Perhaps an acquisition of a leading multivariate testing company will give Omniture the upper hand in this race to be acquired – perhaps the incentive to kill two ‘anti-Google’ birds with one stone will be too much for Microsoft to resist.

If that is the rationale for this move – kudos to Omniture exec – your shareholder should be proud. Then again, I often give business leaders too much credit for dumb business decisions. My litmus test for this acquisition is simple: if Omniture is acquired before January 1, look back on this deal and give it a big thumbs up.

 

Arbitron Arbitrage – The Google Audio Ads Opportunity

Lured by the $400 advertising credit Google was giving to anyone willing to try out their new radio program – called Google Audio Ads – I went ahead and ran a campaign during the last week of August.

I selected a voice over specialist, wrote a script, and literally in a matter of days I had a professional radio ad ready for primetime. I then selected the geographic area in which I wanted the ad to run, targeted by demographics and station type, and set my CPM bid and weekly budget.

Over a one week period, my ad received 504 air plays and over 400,000 impressions at a cost of about $500. Add in the cost of the voice over, deduct the $400 credit, and I ended up paying about $300 for 500 air plays, or around $.60 an airing.

Did it work? Well in truth, probably not. Although I added in a promotional code at the end of the message to track conversions, I didn’t do enough to truly track sales(next time I’ll take Google’s advice and send the ad to a dedicated URL instead of my company’s main Web site). A cursory analysis of my Google Analytics stats showed a slight increase in visitors in the main cities in which the ad ran, but none of those visitors seemed to turn into paying customers.

That being said, my experience with Audio Ads was incredibly positive and for several reasons, I’m currently pretty bullish about the prospects of this technology – both for Google and for advertisers.

If you know anything about radio advertising (I admit I know very little), if you are in a direct-response business, and if you sell a product that can either be sold over the phone or can be tracked to a specific URL, I recommend you start allocating some of your testing budget to Audio Ads immediately, for two basic reasons:

1. It’s easy. As noted above, you can literally create a professional-quality campaign with no prior radio expertise in a matter of days. For $500-$600, you can have a slew of different ads to test.

2. It’s an arbitrage opportunity. Few people are using Audio Ads right now. Translation: this is a great time to get into the system, find out which ads, stations, time slots, and bids will work for you, and totally pump up your campaigns. In many ways, it’s reminiscent of the early days of AdWords (or better yet of GoTo, I mean Overture, I mean Yahoo Search Marketing). Remember being able to buy the keyword “mortgage” for $.25 CPC? This could be the equivalent.

Again, this isn’t right for everyone. If you haven’t yet optimized your AdWords campaigns, that’s still a better place to spend your time. If you don’t have prior experience in radio, I’d still be cautious. And if you can’t track and convert people via the Web and phone, you may have difficulty. But for those of you that meet the qualifications outlined above, this is a huge ROI opportunity.

 

Online Scammers Moving Offline?

I got an interesting piece of direct mail this weekend. The front of the mailer had an image of a jet speeding up into the atmosphere with the tagline: “Got money? The sky’s the limit with this stock!”

Inside the mailer, there were tons of over-the-top reasons to invest immediately in Connect-A-Jet – claims that were clearly fraudulent and unsupportable. A few examples:

  • Estimated growth: 875%
  • Early investors could make a fortune!
  • Could CAJT be the next Expedia? Expedia sold for $1.2 Billion!
  • With the best track record in the business, you are assured that stock picks from TheStockPic.com have routinely performed at the highest level of expectation.
  • Every stock featured by TheStockPic.com has experienced tremendous growth.

If you are like me and you sometimes enjoy reading your SPAM inbox, you will no doubt recognize this sort of promotional language. Penny stock scams are definitely one of the top ten spams I get these days.

In fact, according to Wikipedia: “Approximately fifty-five billion unsolicited “spam” e-mail messages are sent each day, a significant proportion of which tout penny stocks, usually as part of a pump and dump scheme. According to a study conducted at Oxford,[19] 15% of all spam was related to penny stock fraud. According to the study, “People who respond to the “pump and dump” scam can lose 8% of their investment in two days. Conversely, the spammers who buy low-priced stock before sending the e-mails, typically see a return of between 4.9% and 6% when they sell.”

Clearly, online users are becoming accustomed to this sort of scam, hence the move offline. I would imagine that it’s a somewhat risky move though – tracking offline mailings is certainly a lot easier than tracking email spam.

To that point, the mailers were apparently worried enough to include a disclaimer on their collateral (I can’t imagine any disclaimer protecting this company from prosecution). When you read the fine print, it’s provides a little insight into how the entire scam works:

Connect-a-Jet (“CAJT“), the Company featured in this issue, appears as paid advertising by Wynn Holdings (WHL) . . . WHL has received 10 million shares of CATJ stock that may be sold into the market at any time, without notice, for multiple purposes . . .WHL has paid an advertising cost of nine hundred and ninety thousand dollars to produce and distribute this mailing.

In other words, CATJ gave WHL 10 million shares, in exchange for WHL spending $1 million to promote CATJ. Assuming WHL’s marketing can increase the value of CATJ by $.11 or more, no doubt both the shareholders of CATJ and WHL will immediately dump their shares – resulting in a nice profit for everyone but the poor saps that actually fall for this scam.

As I wrote last week in reference to good and bad affiliate marketers, the weakest link always brings down everyone else. This is just one more example of bad marketers ruining it for the rest of us.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 4, 2007 in marketing scams, spam

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.