Posts tagged as:

Pay-Per-Click

Know Thy Searcher

February 11, 2008

in SEM

For the last week, I’ve been humbled by the flu. I’m honestly not sure what was worse, having the flu or subjecting myself to 5 days of cable TV while I lay on the couch. (I feel very close to Bob Villa now.)

While I sat on couch, cheering my white blood cells on, I did a search for "flu symptoms." I noticed a common search problem—a case of one advertiser knowing who they are talking to and others who are clearly not sure.

Search marketing like other forms of marketing, need to focus on "the who." Not the stellar British rock band of the 60s and 70s, but those who are searching. You must know who you are talking to in order for the brand message to break through the clutter. The keywords you bid on tell you "the who" and what their intent is.

This PPC ad is perfect.

Flu symptoms PPC Ad

It’s to the point and addresses exactly what anyone searching for information on flu symptoms needs.

Tylenol, on the other hand, is wasting money (and a consumer’s time) because they don’t know who they are talking to.

Tylenol PPC Ad

Simply, I don’t have a "common cold," I have the flu. Based on my search—flu symptoms—what
I want is pretty clear. Their PPC ad does not begin to address my intent for searching.

Next, I did a search for "flu treatments" and found the same issue. A few very good PPC ads that spoke to and leads to information about how to treat the flu. But again, Tylenol misses:

Tylenol PPC Ad

Once again, I’m not trying to treat a cold. I’m dealing with nausea, a flu symptom not a cold symptom. But, alas, Tylenol is not alone. Vicks also uses off-target copy.

Vicks PPC Ad

PPC ads must address the intent of the searcher in order to convince them that your site has information they can use. That is why a consumer will click. For some keywords, this can be tricky to judge. Multiple ads can help you test your way into figuring out what ads speak to the consumer the best.

But in some cases, such as with flu symptoms and treatment, the intent is clear. And failing to address the consumer’s need will send them clicking somewhere else.

{ 0 comments }

This week, 1-800-Contacts sued LensWorld for allegedly purchasing branded terms in order to show LensWorld PPC ads when users are searching 1-800-Contacts. (MediaPost reports.) The key here is one company buying the branded terms of another company.

This is not the first lawsuit of its type. The question is around if it is infringement of any sort. Currently, engines allow advertisers to buy competitive brand terms if the competitors name is not used in the actual ad copy. Complaints to engines over this are handled on a case-by-case basis.

The main problem I see with a competitor buying the branded terms of another competitor is that it drives up the cost for that brand name. Simply, you could end up paying a high pay-per-click rate for your own name if your competitor purchased your brand name as well. (Many people I know in the industry follow an unwritten rule not to buy competitor brand names, often for fear of retribution on their own
brand name.)

This is a problem that is very hard to solve, and sadly, will probably have to be sorted out in the court room. Is it Google or Yahoo’s job to protect intellectual property? I say no, but engines constantly find themselves in the middle of this issue.

Honestly, it’s not much different than two advertisers appearing on the same page of a magazine. It is up the professionals that create the ad to distinguish it among the competitors.

Besides, every company should rank highly in organic listings for their own branded terms. If a company can not stand out on a search results page for their own branded terms, they have much larger issues than a competitors bid price.

{ 0 comments }

A few days ago my friend sent me an IM asking me if I knew where he could buy a bag of salt for his driveway. Here in the mid-west, Old Man Winter isn’t quite done with us yet. Being a search fanatic, I quickly consulted Google by typing in "Snow Salt."

I found these two pay-per-click ads:

Shopping.com PPC Ad

Target PPC Ad

What exactly, are they trying to sell me? It’s certainly not snow salt.

Whenever a pay-per-click ads messaging does not match consumer expectation, it creates a disconnect that can damage a brand’s reputation. As a consumer, it starts to feel like a brand is trying to trick me into a click.

Maybe "snow salt" was a very cheap keyword to bid on. But damaging a brand’s reputation is very expensive.

{ 0 comments }

Links to Ponder

November 13, 2006

in General

NYTimes has a take down of Google’s plans to put ads, well, everywhere.
Struggle Over Dominance and Definition

Google’s chief executive, Eric E. Schmidt, has said the company plans eventually to have as many as 1,000 engineers and sales representatives working on the radio industry.

What’s at stake is pretty much everything in the $400 billion global advertising honey pot.

And speaking of ads being everywhere, in another article, Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt suggests that placing ads on cell phones could lead to free cell phone service. Google CEO sees free cell phone service. GPhone, anyone?

{ 0 comments }

Click Fraud is a two-tiered problem. One is technological and the other public relations. One battlefield is the algorithms that ferret out invalid clicks and the other is dueling press releases and media outlets. Today’s news covers the later.

Independent click-fraud firms that sell click-fraud monitoring services are heightening the fear of click fraud. Or so Google says.

But while these firms may have a financial incentive to make the problem seem larger than it is, so to does Google have a financial incentive to make it seem smaller. Half the fight is over perception of the problem and not the problem itself.

I do agree with Google that the problem has been overstated in the media. It’s the hot topic of the moment which can be easily turned on its head, as I did in a previous post. [Post link: Doesn't It Mean Paid Search is 85% Effective?]

But what is most frustrating to me is that while there is much speculation regarding potential solutions for click fraud, I rarely see anyone talk about the most natural  solution—optimization!

SEO is the click fraud killer. A higher natural ranking means that an advertiser can spend
less on pay-per-click and get the same results.

{ 0 comments }

This morning Yahoo! announced that it will release the much anticipated redesign of their advertising console in Q3 of this year.

The changes will include a more intuitive control panel, with a user-tested navigation. It is also aimed at helping advertisers to easily understand campaign results.

Also expected is better targeting for local search, so pay-per-click ads can be focused on more specific areas.

Ads will be activated in 30 minutes or less, instead of the occasional 3-day long wait that some advertisers currently experience.

There will be better forecasting to help advertisers get a better idea of what their campaigns may really cost. This is a welcome change since I have seen estimates prove to be highly inaccurate. Yahoo did not say how they will make it more accurate, but I will be eager to see how this works in practice.

Goal-based campaign optimization will also be added as a feature. Click price can be automatically adjusted based on cost-per-acquisition.

Yahoo will also be implementing what they call the Visible Quality Index. With this, ads will be scored based on quality, bid price and other variables. This score will be visible to advertisers, and will eventually determine how pay-per-click ads are ranked. Advertisers will not be able to buy the top spot solely on bid price anymore.

All these changes are welcome additions to Yahoo’s search marketing tools. After seeing another Yahoo product — the email beta — they appear to have really figured out how to provide powerful, yet simple tools.

{ 0 comments }