RSS

Monthly Archives: December 2008

10 Themes from 2008

1. Mobile has finally arrived (thank you iPhone). Yes, people have been talking about mobile since 2000, but the iPhone finally makes it possible to use cool applications on your phone and surf the Internet in a somewhat normal way. Advertising, while still mostly for mobile applications, is not far behind.

2. Web 2.0 is cool, but not yet an advertising medium for most. Facebook is growing at 600,000 users a day, but I’ve yet to see the ROI from advertising on it or other Web 2.0 apps (other than for marketing mobile apps). Will this happen in 2009? I’d say there’s a good chance, considering the fact that the recession is causing 2.0 companies to stop talking eyeballs and start talking dollars.

3. SEOs don’t know SEM, SEMs don’t know SEO. SEO and SEM are separate fields. SEOs still seem to write about SEM like they understand it. They don’t.

4. The algorithm is dead, most people just don’t know it yet. The SERPs in Google these days are ridiculous – filled with affiliates, fake affiliates, content-for-hire, and outright spam. Let’s face it, algorithms don’t work, they are too easily gamed. Someone is going to figure this out, either Google or an upstart competitor.

5. Google’s competitors are still lame. Yahoo should have sold to MSN. MSN should fix the UI for AdCenter. Expect similar missteps in 2009.

6. Sphinn was a great idea, but has failed to deliver on its promise. I wish I could rely on Sphinn to deliver the best SEM/SEO/SMO articles across the Internet, but instead its just an old boys network promoting each other’s articles (increasing, it seems, to themselves).

7. Google continues to deliver incredible reporting tools. Geographic reporting, Google versus Search Network, Placement Performance – these are all game changers for those who know how to use them. I expect more great stuff in 2009 from the AdWords team.

8. There are a lot of bad SEM consultants out there. Some are bad because they don’t know what they are doing, others are part of giant agencies that talk a good talk but are stuck in brand-marketing world, but I suspect that most are bad because they simply don’t spend enough (or any) time on their accounts. My favorite example: one of my clients was being charged $10,000 an hour by their former consulting firm (who had spent exactly 1.5 hours over three months on their account!).

9. Retention is the key to online success. Doesn’t matter if you are in ecommerce, B2B or Web 2.0, if you don’t care about long-term customer relationships, your business can’t survive. The online world is too competitive. Slash-and-burn business models worked in 2002, but they are dinosaurs in 2008 and beyond.

10. The (Internet) world is flat. The cost of building a Web site has gone down to almost nothing. Ideas can be spread in seconds. A start-up in Oklahoma can become just as successful as one in Silicon Valley, and an engineer in Russia can communicate with you just as well as the one down the street. The Internet is global, which means that customers, employees, and competition are global. For some businesses, this is a huge advantage, but for others, the barriers to entry are disappearing alarmingly fast.

I had a great 2008 and I wish everyone a great 2009!

 
4 Comments

Posted by on December 30, 2008 in 2008 themes

 

Google Sneeze: What the Heck is Up with the Google Homepage Holiday Doodle

This picture seems kinda creepy to me. Are there aliens shooting lasers at presents? Exploding steam pipes? The kid is clearly freaked out; either that or he is working on his “jazz hands” for an upcoming Broadway audition.

I know tomorrow there is going to be a cute picture that explains the current one, but that doesn’t excuse the freaky one today.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on December 24, 2008 in google homepage

 

An Open Letter to LinkedIn: Please Stop the Group Spam

Every day I check the Online Lead Gen group I created on LinkedIn. I look at the messages posted on the discussion board and delete questionable posts and remove blatant spammers from the group. The result (I think) is that the discussion board is relevant and valuable to members and usage seems to be increasing every week.

It appears, however, that most other LinkedIn group discussion boards are completely unmoderated. The result is a classic “tragedy of the commons” scenario, where spammers quickly take over the board and drive away anyone who might actually contribute value to the group. To give you an example of the absolute silliness of some of the postings on other sites, here are a few recent ones from the “Online Advertising Professionals” group (these are the headlines only – I’ll leave it to you to imagine the highly relevant content inside):


Isn’t there a need to join and benefit from the Linked In Group, “Value for Money Deals for ethnic Indians living in United States of America”?

National Parks Tips and Tricks

Domain name for sale www.barackobama1stblackpresident.com

Press Release: Farm Boy Records

☆ INVITE ME [6,300+ 14M]… ALL INVITES ACCEPTED!!! ☆

Here is a online marketing site that allows you free advertising to over 200,000 members worldwide. My sales shot up by over 40 percent and it’s run by BT, read my story. [Note: this post has been published more than 40 times in less than two weeks . . .]

This is the kind of stuff that dooms public forums. I guess you could say it is a good problem for LinkedIn to have – clearly there are thousands of people who think that there is enough traffic on these discussion boards to justify spending time spamming them – but if it isn’t fixed soon, I fear that the entire discussion board concept on LinkedIn is in jeopardy.

Interestingly, in that same Online Advertising Professionals group, the #2 most commented-upon discussion post is this: Who started this group?…is there anyway to minimize the info-mercials on this discussion group? Where’s the value?”

 
2 Comments

Posted by on December 22, 2008 in linkedin

 

This Blog Goes to 400 (Subscribers): Why I Like You Reading My Blog

The slow growth of my blog’s feed subscription count was once quite frustrating to me. I’ve always tried to write posts that are unique, educational, and honest and I outright avoid (and often mock) blog posts that are regurgitations of the latest Google press release. And yet, my subscription count grows at about 50 subscribers a year. Other blogs -the ones that follow the “quantity not quality” approach to writing, grow like weeds.

Lately, however, I’ve come to terms with my blog’s readership. Here’s what I’ve realized: most people that read and/or write SEM blogs know virtually nothing about SEM. Most often they fall into two camps: SEO experts who are convinced that they know enough about SEM to write about it, or big agency-types who try to parlay their knowledge of corporate branding into correlaries in the SEM world.

These bloggers get big exposure – they get invited to “Search Insider” events, they get Sphunn frequently, they appear at all the big search conferences, and they even get recognition for being leading online marketing influencers. But when you read what they are saying about SEM, its pretty clear that they are “all hat and no cattle.” As far as I can tell, most of them haven’t even managed a campaign since around 2003.

Want some examples of what I mean? Here’s a few:

This week 45 people Sphunn an SEM article that suggested as one of the 7 best practices for SEM, and I quote: “Don’t bid on Content Network – I know some might disagree with me here but this is purely based on my own experience & what works best for me and my clients. I feel that even though bidding at content network is often cheaper, but in terms of conversion the performance of content network is very poor.” My response: I am glad that this sort of misinformation is spreading to the masses – more ROI for me on contextual advertising!

Earlier this month, at the (sic) Search Insider Summit, a speaker apparently gave a whole presentation with (again I quote) this conclusion: “In this morning’s sponsored breakfast session, Vantage Media shared its POV that the long tail is dead and brand terms should be the main focus for search marketers.” My response: Brand terms should be the main focus? So that gives me, what, about 25 terms in my account?

In Search Engine Land (Danny, you can do better than this!), a link-bait article about the nine myths of Quality Scores notes, among other things: “Myth 6: Google hates affiliates False. The question affiliates should ask themselves is: “Was the user’s search experience made better by visiting my page before going to the merchant’s page?” My response: Clearly, the author has never work with or for an affiliate marketing company trying to run ads on Google!

I could go on and on with more examples, but you get the point: there’s just a lot of misinformation that gets touted as good advice out there. But here’s what I’m really trying to say about all of this (took me long enough to get to the point): I’m OK with a smaller blog audience because you – my readers – are the readers I want to reach. I now understand that my blog can never grow to 10,000 subscribers, simply because there aren’t 10,000 people in the SEM community that understand SEM well enough to actually “get” my posts.

And that’s OK. At the end of the day, I’m glad that I can write posts that are too complicated for the average ClickZ reader and still get almost 400 readers. I suspect if I did a poll of the audience of this blog, I’d find more advanced degrees and serious SEM experience by a factor of 5X than what you find on the ‘popular’ blogs. So thanks for being a reader and congratulations, you must be pretty knowledgeable of SEM!

By the way, the idea that I would welcome a “smaller” audience of readers did immediately remind me of one of my favorite movies, This Is Spinal Tap. The classic scene goes like this:

MARTY: The last time Tap toured America, they were, uh, booked into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now, on their current tour they’re being booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering, does this mean uh . . . the popularity of the group is waning?

IAN: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no . . . no, no, not at all. I, I, I just think that the . . . uh . . .their appeal is becoming more selective.

Yes friends, my blog does indeed go to 11!

 
7 Comments

Posted by on December 20, 2008 in sem blogs

 

Google Listens to Blogation! Consumer Finance Category Appears in Placement Targeting

A few months ago I noted (with surprise) that Google did not have a “consumer finance” category on their placement tool. I wrote: “I cannot think of any reason of the top of my head why Google would want to hide this category from potential advertisers? Considering the billions they make off these advertisers on AdWords, it seems logical that they’d want to drive a lot of revenue through AdSense from these same advertisers.”

This week I was perusing the tool and – guess what – consumer finance is in the mix.

Is this yet another reaction to the economic recession – a way for Google to grab a few extra dollars? Or do product managers at Google just sit around reading Blogation looking for new ideas? Personally, I am going with the latter.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 15, 2008 in placement targeting

 

Google to Advertisers: Help Us Optimize Our Profits, Please!

A got a good tip from Terry at CPCSearch a few days ago. He was running ads in one of his accounts on “rotate ad text” when he got a friendly message in his AdWords UI:

Increase traffic by showing your best ad more often
Ad groups using the “Rotate Ad Serving” option shows ad roughly evenly. However, an ad group’s best ad typically performs about 15%-50% better than the ad group overall (based on CTR in Google). To maximize traffic, we recommend using the “Optimizing Ad Serving” option . . .

On first glance, a pretty innocuous message, right? Well, take a look at the definition of the “best ad” – it’s “based on CTR in Google.” In other words, the ad that makes Google the most money!

The optimization setting is not by definition a bad option. Indeed, if you have three ads that have relatively the same conversion rate or RPC, optimizing is the right choice, because optimizing increases the overall clicks you receive and reduces your CPC. But prior to the optimization setting, you should be testing ads against each other on a “rotate” basis. You should multiple CTR times Conversion Rate to determine which ads are driving the most ROI for your business. Once you’ve paused the ones that don’t work, go ahead and turn on the optimization settings.

The problem here, however, is that Google is making a blanket statement that optimization is better by definition because it will find you the “best” ads. In this case, what’s good for the Google, is not good for the gander. What’s even more troubling is that Google has a lot of training material on their site that is actually helpful to newbie advertisers. Once they’ve gained the trust of the novice, they can then add in some occasionally misleading advice without notice. Nice find Terry!

 
4 Comments

Posted by on December 12, 2008 in ad copy

 

Quality Score: Less Effective by The Day

I speculated a few months ago that an economic recession could lead to a decline in Google’s Quality Score standards. To put it bluntly, as Google’s ‘quality’ advertisers cut back spend, Google would have no choice but to let affiliates, MFAs, and the like back into the AdWords ranks.

Over the last few months, that is exactly what seems to be happening. The affiliates running faux blogs and “how does your IQ compare to Brett Favre’s IQ?” ads seem to be appearing more and more frequently. The quality bar has indeed been lowered, and I suspect will continue to remain low until the Countrywides and Walmarts of the world can afford to pay more per clicks again.

I found yet another example of Quality Score gone AWOL yesterday. I did a search for “Acai cookbook” (in case you are interested, my Mother has published such a book, hence the search) and got the following top three listings:

Basically the same exact ad text, taking a user to the same exact fake review/blog site, just with different URLs. This isn’t double-serving, it’s triple serving, and in a way that isn’t even attempting to veil it. Surely Google’s secret Quality Score algorithm could figure this out pretty quickly, that is, if it wanted to.

The problem, though, is that these advertisers are likely paying $5 or $6 a click for these ads, and there is no ‘legit’ advertiser with which to replace them. Apparently, desperate times call for desperate looking the other way. With Google’s stock already down about 70% from its high, quantity of ads and ad revenue is clearly more important that quality.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on December 11, 2008 in quality score

 

MSN AdCenter – Out-dumbing Even Yahoo Search Marketing

If you need further evidence that Google’s success is at least in part due to the idiocy of their competitors, consider this: in Google, if you want to set up geo-targeting, you do so at a campaign level. So, if you have 100 ad groups in a campaign, you can set-up geo-targeting for all of them in a few minutes. You can also set up geo-targeting via Google’s publicly available Desktop Editor.

In MSN AdCenter, you have to set up geo-targeting on the group (Ad Group) level. So if you have 10 campaigns and 1000 groups, you have to manually set up geo-targeting 1000 times! And MSN does have a Desktop Editor, but it is in limited beta (and has been for about six months). I got access to the beta but I wasn’t able to download it, because my computer was using the Vista operating system.

I’ve been critical of Yahoo Search Marketing’s ineffective Panama system, but as I start to use AdCenter (er, try to use AdCenter), I am starting to think that YSM is not so bad, at least by comparison. Clearly this was a system set up in a vacuum in Redmond – had they spent even a few minutes talking to search marketers, this sort of over-the-top bad design would not be an issue.

 
14 Comments

Posted by on December 9, 2008 in msn adcenter

 

I Am Not the Biggest Search Geek (Or the Biggest Loser, for That Matter)

SMX and Marin Software just released a fun online quiz for the SEM community. If you get the most questions right in the fastest amount of time, you get tickets to SMX West and on-stage recognition from Danny Sullivan (just don’t have a Cuba Gooding/Roberto Benigni/Sally Field moment).

I just took the quiz and I only got 51% right (for the record, I got 92% right on the AdWords Pro test . . . ). There are some very tough questions in here, especially when it comes to Yahoo Search Marketing and MSN Ad Center. I think the fact that you are scored both on correctness and speed makes a lot of these questions especially difficult – it reminded me of the SAT!

I’m sure I could score better if I took a little more time on this, so don’t post snide comments about how you beat me!

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 3, 2008 in biggest search geek

 

Spam Poetry Volume XII: Puppy Scammers, Smith Williams, and The American Citizens

I’m glad the FBI is looking out for me, but I think they need to work on their grammar a bit!

From: F B I
Subject: URGENT ATTENTION NEEDED (805)

Anti-Terrorist And Monitory Crime Division.
Federal Bureau Of Investigation.
J.Edgar.Hoover Building Washington Dc [Editor's Note: I guess the FBI doesn't need street addresses or even room numbers?]

Attn: Beneficiary,

This is to Officially inform you that it has come to our notice and we have thoroughly Investigated with the help of our Intelligence Monitoring Network System that you are having an illegal Transaction with Impostors claiming to be Prof. Charles C. Soludo of the Central Bank Of Nigeria, Mr. Patrick Aziza, Mr Frank Nweke, Dr. Philip Mogan, none officials of Oceanic Bank, Zenith Banks, Barr. Derrick Smith, kelvin Young of HSBC, Ben of FedEx, Ibrahim Sule,Larry Christopher, Dr. Usman Shamsuddeen, Dr. Philip Mogan [Again?], Puppy Scammers are impostors claiming to be the Federal Bureau Of Investigation. During our Investigation, we noticed that the reason why you have not received your payment is because you have not fulfilled your Financial Obligation given to you in respect of your Contract/Inheritance Payment.

Therefore, we have contacted the Federal Ministry Of Finance on your behalf and they have brought a solution to your problem by cordinating your payment intotal USD$11,000.000.00 in an ATM CARD which you can use to withdraw money from any ATM MACHINE CENTER anywhere in the world with a maximum of $4000 to $5000 United States Dollars daily. You now have the lawful right to claim your fund in an ATM CARD.

Since the Federal Bureau of Investigation is involved in this transaction, you have to be rest assured [I guess I don't have a choice] for this is 100% risk free it is our duty to protect the American Citizens. All I want you to do is to contact the ATM CARD CENTER via email for their requirements to proceed and procure your Approval Slip on your behalf which will cost you $250.00 only and note that your Approval Slip which contains details of the agent who will process your transaction.

CONTACT INFORMATION
NAME: MR. SMITH WILLIAMS
EMAIL: smithwilliams1@yahoo.cn [Thank God the FBI has Chinese email addresses!]

Do contact Mr. Smith williams of the ATM CARD CENTRE with your details:

FULL NAME:
HOME ADDRESS:
TELL: [I get nervous when I have a full house]
CELL:
CURRENT OCCUPATION:
BANK NAME:
AGE:

So your files would be updated after which he will send the payment information’s which you’ll use in making payment of $250.00 via Western Union Money Transfer or Money Gram Transfer for the procurement of your Approval Slip after which the delivery of your ATM CARD will be effected to your designated home address without any further delay [For security reasons, we must use periods sparingly].We order you get back to this office after you have contacted the ATM SWIFT CARD CENTER and we do await your response so we can move on with our Investigation and make sure your ATM SWIFT CARD gets to you.

Thanks and hope to read from you soon [I will send you my novel when it is published].

ROBERT S. MUELLER, III
DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [Make up your mind, are you with the FBI or the DOJ?]

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20535 Note: Do disregard any email you get from any impostors or offices claiming to be in possession of your ATM CARD, you are hereby advice only to be in contact with Mr. Smith Williams of the ATM CARD CENTRE who is the rightful person to deal with in regards to your ATM CARD PAYMENT and forward any emails you get from impostors to this office so we could act upon and commence investigation.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on December 3, 2008 in spam poetry

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.